<ul><li>AST  Training </li></ul><ul><li>for Hanscom MFH </li></ul><ul><li>Privatization Selection   </li></ul>Bob Urey 311...
AGENDA <ul><li>Inherently Governmental Functions </li></ul><ul><li>Selection Organization Overview </li></ul><ul><li>Respo...
<ul><li>Inherently Governmental Functions </li></ul><ul><li>Legal advice to government officials </li></ul><ul><li>Decisio...
Inherently Governmental Functions <ul><li>Inherently Governmental Functions (cont’d) </li></ul><ul><li>Assignment of risk ...
<ul><li>Selection  </li></ul><ul><li>Organization </li></ul><ul><li>Overview  </li></ul>
Organization/Responsibilities <ul><li>PSC Responsibilities </li></ul><ul><li>Receives Proposals </li></ul><ul><li>Conducts...
<ul><li>Responsibilities &  </li></ul><ul><li>AST  </li></ul><ul><li>Membership  </li></ul>
Responsibilities <ul><li>SA Responsibilities :   Overall responsibility to </li></ul><ul><li>direct the selection process ...
Responsibilities <ul><li>SA Responsibilities :   (cont.)   </li></ul><ul><li>Approves exclusion of offeror from down selec...
<ul><li>SAC:  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reviews evaluations and findings of PSC/AST </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provides advice...
Acquisition Support Team Membership
Acquisition Support Team <ul><li>Acquisition Support Team (AST) Chair/Co-Chairs </li></ul><ul><li>Leads  government offici...
Acquisition Support Team <ul><li>Oversees the PSC’s work during selection process </li></ul><ul><li>Validates the results ...
Acquisition Support Team <ul><li>Read  entire proposal </li></ul><ul><li>Verify ,  as a minimum , the minimum threshold re...
<ul><li>Privatization Support Contractor </li></ul><ul><li>(PSC) </li></ul>
Support Contractor (PSC) <ul><li>Read entire proposal </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluate  proposals & revisions against solicitati...
<ul><li>Selection  </li></ul><ul><li>Information  </li></ul><ul><li>& </li></ul><ul><li>Procurement Integrity </li></ul>
SELECTION INFORMATION <ul><li>Selection Information (SI) must be handled with the utmost discretion to avoid any compromis...
SELECTION INFORMATION <ul><li>AST Chairs are responsible for ensuring each person receiving SI complete and sign an SI Bri...
SELECTION INFORMATION <ul><li>Information, the disclosure of which would jeopardize the </li></ul><ul><li>integrity or suc...
SELECTION INFORMATION
PROCUREMENT INTEGRITY <ul><li>Prohibition on disclosing procurement information </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Agency official know...
PROCUREMENT INTEGRITY <ul><li>Disqualification Procedures </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Individuals who disqualify themselves must...
PROCUREMENT INTEGRITY <ul><li>Violations or Possible Violations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>AST Chair & CO have duty to determin...
PROCUREMENT INTEGRITY <ul><li>Penalties </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Contractual Remedies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Disquali...
<ul><li>Planning and Preparation  </li></ul>
Planning and Preparation <ul><li>Read the Competition Plan (CP) and Selection Evaluation Criteria </li></ul><ul><li>Read k...
Planning and Preparation <ul><li>Before PSC/AST Team opens proposals, recommend: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Team discussion of ...
BREAKTIME
Evaluations/Ratings
Evaluations <ul><li>Avoid bias for/against any Offeror  </li></ul><ul><li>Everything must be traceable to the RFP (Sects. ...
RATINGS EXCEPTIONAL EXCEEDS  specified minimum performance or capability  REQUIREMENTS  in a way  BENEFICIAL  to the Air F...
RATINGS <ul><li>No deficiencies </li></ul><ul><li>One or more proposal inadequacies drives yellow rating </li></ul><ul><ul...
RFP Requirement <ul><li>     BASELINE REQUIREMENTS </li></ul><ul><li>The required threshold performance requirements state...
Generate Initial Ratings <ul><li>General Notes:   </li></ul><ul><ul><li>If approach to meet a requirement is too unclear t...
<ul><li>Exchanges/Clarifications </li></ul><ul><li>Discussions </li></ul>
Exchanges <ul><li>“ Exchanges”  is a term describing the transfer of information between the PSC/Gov’t and Offerors </li><...
Clarifications <ul><li>Limited exchanges, between the PSC/govt and offerors, that may occur when award without discussions...
Discussions / Negotiations <ul><li>Exchanges between the PSC/govt and offerors with intent of allowing offeror to revise i...
<ul><li>Decisions  </li></ul><ul><li>& </li></ul><ul><li>Debriefings  </li></ul>
Decision Phase <ul><li>Complete Draft PAR  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Coordinate based on AST/SAC recommendations </li></ul></u...
Debriefings
Debriefings <ul><li>Before award </li></ul><ul><li>Offerors excluded from Step two competition </li></ul><ul><li>Post-awar...
SUMMARY <ul><li>PSC contractor is evaluating & recommending </li></ul><ul><li>AST is providing “Inherently Governmental” f...
SUMMARY <ul><li>THINK! </li></ul><ul><li>Comments are the Foundation! </li></ul><ul><li>RFP (Section 5) is the  only  crit...
QUESTIONS???
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Acquisition Support Team Training

763 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
763
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Acquisition Support Team training. Training is for Hanscom but it conforms to the contract requirements for all PSC contracts and Privatization Initiatives.
  • We will be covering these topic areas. We will have a question and answer session at the end of the training, but you may ask them at any time throughout the presentation.
  • The Privatization process is handled predominantly through a Privatization Support Contractor; however, even though the leg work is performed by contract there are certain functions that are required to be made by Government Officials. These are referred to as Inherently Governmental functions.
  • The SSET Chair is the overseer of the source selection. The Chair is responsible for ensuring the evaluation is properly accomplished, documented and consistent with recommendations made to the SSA. In addition, the SSET Chair recommends a source selection decision if requested by the SSA. Ensures SSET knows their responsibilities and everyone complies with standards of conduct. Prepares the SSDD in conjunction with the contracting officer (AFFARS 5315.303-90-(a)(9). Participates in debriefings (AFFARS 5315.303-90(a)(11).
  • 39 38 47 57
  • 39 38 47 57
  • 38 37 46 56
  • 39 38 47 57
  • My portion of the briefing covers the Evaluation Process from Step 1, Qualifications to Step 3, Technical Submittals We’ll cover evaluation terms, source selection definitions, Jones Lang LaSalle proposed evaluation, and proposed decision briefs
  •  New policy Standards have been eliminated! The focus is now on whether a proposal exceeds, meets, does not clearly meet or does not meet the mission capability requirements. Proposal inadequacy merely connotes “uncertainty”. In other words, evaluators cannot reasonably determine whether a requirement has been met Includes former “CRS” (i.e., minor errors/minor unknowns) Includes former “DRS” (i.e., judgmental errors/substantive unknowns) Determining whether a proposal inadequacy may be addressed in “clarifications” is the responsibility of the contracting officer with advice from SSET Chair and legal counsel. Permits SSA to award if uncertainty is “correctable” “ Correctable” is not defined. No time period is mandated for the offeror to make the correction (unlike AA/BB). Will require SSET to thoroughly describe and analyze the “proposal inadequacy” before briefing it to the SSA Should be rare at a decision briefing Please note that any Proposal Inadequacy equates to a yellow rating per Mrs. Druyun (Oct 2000).
  • One of the most significant changes brought about by acquisition reform is the relaxation of rules concerning transferring information between the Government and potential offerors both before and after RFP release. The process of transferring information is now called “exchanges” and the categories of information that may be transferred during the source selection process has also changed. (FAR 15.306)
  • If it is specifically stated in the RFP, after initial evaluation of proposals, award may be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the government based on application of evaluation factors for award. That means you shouldn’t have any significant questions about his proposal. What falls under the clarifications explanation in the FAR and AFFARS is very limited. While opinions may differ on the specific information that may be clarified, the bottom line remains that clarifications cannot result in a change to the offerors proposal.
  • The primary objective of discussions remains much the same as it always was; to maximize the Govt ability to obtain best value, based on the requirement and the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP. However, acquisition reform has broadened the scope of discussions and relaxed some of the rigidness of the process. Today, discussion topics include (1) significant weaknesses, (2) deficiencies, (3) and OTHER ACPECTS THAT COULD BE ALTERED OR EXPLAINED TO MATERIALLY ENHANCE THE PROPOSAL’S POTENTIAL FOR AWARD. Tailoring discussions to each proposal is a leap from the paradigm of “treating each offer the same.” Bargaining is also a new term that has been added. Bargaining includes persuasion, alteration of assumptions and positions, give-and-take, and may apply to price, schedule, technical requirements, type of contract, or other terms of a proposed contract. In addition, face-to-face negotiations are being used during competitive source selections. At the completion of negotiations, the government will request Final Proposal Revisions. Acquisition Reform has also expanded the openness of information transmitted to offerors during RFPR. All programs have been directed to provide each offeror their rating status prior to RFPR. Some changes are more subtle than others, but you can see the broadening and loosening of these formerly rigid processes.
  • My portion of the briefing covers the Evaluation Process from Step 1, Qualifications to Step 3, Technical Submittals We’ll cover evaluation terms, source selection definitions, Jones Lang LaSalle proposed evaluation, and proposed decision briefs
  • The primary objective of discussions remains much the same as it always was; to maximize the Govt ability to obtain best value, based on the requirement and the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP. However, acquisition reform has broadened the scope of discussions and relaxed some of the rigidness of the process. Today, discussion topics include (1) significant weaknesses, (2) deficiencies, (3) and OTHER ACPECTS THAT COULD BE ALTERED OR EXPLAINED TO MATERIALLY ENHANCE THE PROPOSAL’S POTENTIAL FOR AWARD. Tailoring discussions to each proposal is a leap from the paradigm of “treating each offer the same.” Bargaining is also a new term that has been added. Bargaining includes persuasion, alteration of assumptions and positions, give-and-take, and may apply to price, schedule, technical requirements, type of contract, or other terms of a proposed contract. In addition, face-to-face negotiations are being used during competitive source selections. At the completion of negotiations, the government will request Final Proposal Revisions. Acquisition Reform has also expanded the openness of information transmitted to offerors during RFPR. All programs have been directed to provide each offeror their rating status prior to RFPR. Some changes are more subtle than others, but you can see the broadening and loosening of these formerly rigid processes.
  • Acquisition Support Team Training

    1. 1. <ul><li>AST Training </li></ul><ul><li>for Hanscom MFH </li></ul><ul><li>Privatization Selection </li></ul>Bob Urey 311th HSW/PKOA DSN 240-3592
    2. 2. AGENDA <ul><li>Inherently Governmental Functions </li></ul><ul><li>Selection Organization Overview </li></ul><ul><li>Responsibilities (SA, AST and PSC) & AST membership </li></ul><ul><li>Selection Information/Procurement Integrity </li></ul><ul><li>Planning and Preparation </li></ul><ul><li>Exchanges/Discussions </li></ul><ul><li>Decisions/Debriefings </li></ul><ul><li>Summary </li></ul>
    3. 3. <ul><li>Inherently Governmental Functions </li></ul><ul><li>Legal advice to government officials </li></ul><ul><li>Decision to approve the draft RFP & RFP </li></ul><ul><li>Determination whether a proposal complies with the RFP </li></ul><ul><li>Decision to amend the RFP </li></ul><ul><li>Determination to exclude or include an offer within the competitive range </li></ul><ul><li>Determination of adequate price competition </li></ul><ul><li>Assignment of past performance rating </li></ul><ul><li>Assignment of color codes to factors </li></ul>Inherently Governmental Functions
    4. 4. Inherently Governmental Functions <ul><li>Inherently Governmental Functions (cont’d) </li></ul><ul><li>Assignment of risk assessment ratings </li></ul><ul><li>Comparative analysis of offers </li></ul><ul><li>Integrated assessment as to which proposal </li></ul><ul><li>provides the best overall value to the government </li></ul><ul><li>Decision to select a particular developer’s proposal </li></ul><ul><li>for award </li></ul><ul><li>Decision concerning the substance & extent of </li></ul><ul><li>discussions or negotiations. Discussions </li></ul><ul><li>through ENs require AF approval in advance </li></ul><ul><li>Authority to enter into legally binding documents </li></ul>
    5. 5. <ul><li>Selection </li></ul><ul><li>Organization </li></ul><ul><li>Overview </li></ul>
    6. 6. Organization/Responsibilities <ul><li>PSC Responsibilities </li></ul><ul><li>Receives Proposals </li></ul><ul><li>Conducts Evaluations </li></ul><ul><li>- Recommends Ratings </li></ul><ul><li>AST </li></ul><ul><li>- Reviews/Verifies Evaluations </li></ul><ul><li>- Assigns/Approves Ratings </li></ul>
    7. 7. <ul><li>Responsibilities & </li></ul><ul><li>AST </li></ul><ul><li>Membership </li></ul>
    8. 8. Responsibilities <ul><li>SA Responsibilities : Overall responsibility to </li></ul><ul><li>direct the selection process </li></ul><ul><li>Approves the Execution Plan (competition plan) </li></ul><ul><li>Ensure there’s no unauthorized disclosure of </li></ul><ul><li>selection information </li></ul><ul><li>Approves release of Evaluation Notices (ENs) </li></ul><ul><li>(unless delegated) </li></ul><ul><li>Determines if award without discussions is </li></ul><ul><li>appropriate </li></ul>
    9. 9. Responsibilities <ul><li>SA Responsibilities : (cont.) </li></ul><ul><li>Approves exclusion of offeror from down select </li></ul><ul><li>from Step 1 to Step 2 </li></ul><ul><li>Makes selection decision </li></ul><ul><li>Approves/Signs Selection Decision Document (SDD) </li></ul>
    10. 10. <ul><li>SAC: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reviews evaluations and findings of PSC/AST </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provides advice, analysis and recommendation (if requested) to SA </li></ul></ul><ul><li>“ Dry-Run” briefings with “whole AST team” </li></ul><ul><li>Discuss/review any changes with entire AST </li></ul><ul><li>Should review all briefings to offerors </li></ul>Responsibilities
    11. 11. Acquisition Support Team Membership
    12. 12. Acquisition Support Team <ul><li>Acquisition Support Team (AST) Chair/Co-Chairs </li></ul><ul><li>Leads government officials performing “inherently governmental” assessment of the PSC evaluations </li></ul><ul><li>Assigns duties to team members </li></ul><ul><li>Reviews PSC Proposal results and Comments </li></ul><ul><li>Analyzes Strengths, PIs, Deficiencies & Weaknesses to form a subjective Proposal Rating and Risk Rating </li></ul><ul><li>Reviews/recommends/ approves ENs </li></ul><ul><li>Assesses EN Responses and Disposition of ENs </li></ul><ul><li>Checks for Consistency in evaluation process </li></ul>
    13. 13. Acquisition Support Team <ul><li>Oversees the PSC’s work during selection process </li></ul><ul><li>Validates the results of the assessment </li></ul><ul><li>Reviews/recommends release of Evaluation Notices (ENs) </li></ul><ul><li>Validates PSC recommendation to the MAJCOM/CV </li></ul><ul><li>Out-briefs non-selects </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Although the AST’s role is analogous to that of a source selection team, the AST’s evaluation will rely significantly on the assessment performed by the PSC </li></ul></ul>
    14. 14. Acquisition Support Team <ul><li>Read entire proposal </li></ul><ul><li>Verify , as a minimum , the minimum threshold requirements of proposal are covered by Offeror </li></ul><ul><li>Review PSC Comment Forms including recommended ENs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Consolidate, edit, combine, disregard Comments with rationale in Disposition Block of Comment Form </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Accept/Finalize Draft Assessments </li></ul><ul><li>Accept/Finalize Draft ENs provided by PSC </li></ul><ul><li>Ensure that draft briefing “bullets” are detailed and descriptive of comments </li></ul>
    15. 15. <ul><li>Privatization Support Contractor </li></ul><ul><li>(PSC) </li></ul>
    16. 16. Support Contractor (PSC) <ul><li>Read entire proposal </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluate proposals & revisions against solicitation requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Comment, as a minimum , on minimum threshold requirements of proposal and any requirement not covered by Offeror </li></ul><ul><li>Complete Comment Forms including recommended ENs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Consolidate, edit, combine, disregard Comments with rationale in Disposition Block of Comment Form </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Draft Assessments </li></ul><ul><li>Draft ENs based, in part, on comments </li></ul><ul><li>Prepare detailed draft reports and briefings including descriptive comments </li></ul><ul><li>Reports evaluation results to AST, SAC & SA (if required) </li></ul>
    17. 17. <ul><li>Selection </li></ul><ul><li>Information </li></ul><ul><li>& </li></ul><ul><li>Procurement Integrity </li></ul>
    18. 18. SELECTION INFORMATION <ul><li>Selection Information (SI) must be handled with the utmost discretion to avoid any compromise </li></ul><ul><li>The cover page, and each page with SI, shall be marked with the following legend: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ SELECTION INFORMATION” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>PSC contractor/AST Chairs control disclosure of SI during selection and after deal closure </li></ul>
    19. 19. SELECTION INFORMATION <ul><li>AST Chairs are responsible for ensuring each person receiving SI complete and sign an SI Briefing Certificate: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Each person agrees to safeguard SI </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A current OGE Form 450 must be submitted, if required by DODD 5500.7 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A completed and signed SI Briefing Certificate is required of all attending SA briefings </li></ul></ul>
    20. 20. SELECTION INFORMATION <ul><li>Information, the disclosure of which would jeopardize the </li></ul><ul><li>integrity or successful completion of the acquisition </li></ul><ul><li>Examples: </li></ul><ul><li>Execution Plan/Competition plan </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation worksheets, proposal analysis report, attorney’s work papers </li></ul><ul><li>Rankings of offerors </li></ul><ul><li>May be in electronic form, either obtained from the offerors or generated by the government during evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>Extends into the post- award period (protest period) </li></ul><ul><li>Includes talking about what happened during the selection deliberations </li></ul>
    21. 21. SELECTION INFORMATION
    22. 22. PROCUREMENT INTEGRITY <ul><li>Prohibition on disclosing procurement information </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Agency official knowingly discloses proposal information </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Prohibition on obtaining procurement information </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A person shall not knowingly obtain contractor proposal information before award </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Actions required of agency officials when contacted </li></ul><ul><li>by offerors regarding employment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Promptly report in writing to your AST Chair </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>And - reject the non-federal employment offer; or </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Disqualify yourself from the procurement </li></ul></ul>
    23. 23. PROCUREMENT INTEGRITY <ul><li>Disqualification Procedures </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Individuals who disqualify themselves must also submit written notice to the HCA or designee with copies to the AST Chair and SA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identify the acquisition, the nature of personal and substantial participation and identify the offeror involved </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Disqualified individuals may resume participation when the HCA or designee determines </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The contractor is no longer an offeror </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The offer of non-federal employment has been terminated </li></ul></ul></ul>
    24. 24. PROCUREMENT INTEGRITY <ul><li>Violations or Possible Violations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>AST Chair & CO have duty to determine if violation has impact on award or selection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>If no, determination is reviewed at higher level </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>If yes, CO forwards determination and file to HCA </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>HCA, or designee, determines if acquisition is affected </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>May advise the CO to continue procurement, or </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Begin an investigation, or </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Refer for criminal investigation, or </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Determine a Procurement Integrity Act violation and direct appropriate actions </li></ul></ul></ul>
    25. 25. PROCUREMENT INTEGRITY <ul><li>Penalties </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Contractual Remedies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Disqualification of Offeror, </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cancellation of acquisition </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Recision of contract, or sanctions on performance </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Debarment or suspension of Offeror </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Administrative/Civil Penalties (each violation) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Removal from office or other “appropriate adverse” personnel action </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Fines $100,000 (individual) $1 Million (contractor) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Criminal Penalties </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Imprisonment for not more than 5 years or fine under 18 USC, or both. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>These remedies are NOT exclusive </li></ul></ul>
    26. 26. <ul><li>Planning and Preparation </li></ul>
    27. 27. Planning and Preparation <ul><li>Read the Competition Plan (CP) and Selection Evaluation Criteria </li></ul><ul><li>Read key RFP documents . . . . . </li></ul><ul><li>Read Section 3 - Project Arrangements, Requirements, and Management </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Air Force’s minimum project requirements </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Read Section 4 - Instructions to Offerors </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Review proposal structure table </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Study Section 5 - Evaluation Factors </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Understand minimum threshold requirements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Understand how Desired/Enhanced criteria relate to evaluation process </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Understand RFP/Proposal/Real Estate Transaction Linkage </li></ul>
    28. 28. Planning and Preparation <ul><li>Before PSC/AST Team opens proposals, recommend: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Team discussion of Section 5 criteria and parts of the proposal that will be reviewed for each criteria </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Proposal parts: narrative, drawings, plans, appendices, etc. </li></ul></ul>
    29. 29. BREAKTIME
    30. 30. Evaluations/Ratings
    31. 31. Evaluations <ul><li>Avoid bias for/against any Offeror </li></ul><ul><li>Everything must be traceable to the RFP (Sects. 3, 4 & 5) </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluate only the proposal information, not extraneous or supplemental information </li></ul><ul><li>Be objective -- evaluate proposal on the basis of what we asked for, not what we would like to see </li></ul><ul><li>Be thorough -- a proposal must directly reflect fulfillment of all solicitation requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Document, document -- all observations and perceptions you see relating to the proposal </li></ul><ul><li>PSC/AST must ensure comprehensive audit trail </li></ul><ul><li>Ensure consistency across Offerors </li></ul>
    32. 32. RATINGS EXCEPTIONAL EXCEEDS specified minimum performance or capability REQUIREMENTS in a way BENEFICIAL to the Air Force MEETS specified minimum performance or capability REQUIREMENTS necessary for acceptable contract performance ACCEPTABLE <ul><li>No Deficiencies </li></ul><ul><li>May have Strength(s) insufficient to justify “Blue” </li></ul><ul><li>No Deficiencies </li></ul><ul><li>“ Blue” driven by degree of benefit to Govt </li></ul><ul><li>One or more Strengths (one may not be enough) </li></ul>PROPOSAL RISK H M M M L L PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE HC C C SC C C PRICE OR COST $ PRICE / $ PC MISSION CAPABILITY G G R Y Y B
    33. 33. RATINGS <ul><li>No deficiencies </li></ul><ul><li>One or more proposal inadequacies drives yellow rating </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Proposal Inadequacy = An aspect or omission … that may contribute to a failure in meeting specified minimum performance or capability requirements. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Discussions should resolve most (if not all) Yellows </li></ul><ul><li>Contract is “awardable” with yellow rating </li></ul>MARGINAL DOES NOT CLEARLY MEET some specified minimum performance or capability REQUIREMENTS , but any proposal inadequacies are correctable FAILS TO MEET specified minimum performance or capability REQUIREMENTS . Proposals with an unacceptable rating are NOT AWARDABLE UNACCEPTABLE <ul><li>Deficiency -- fails to meet one or more requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Degree of failure: Egregious to very minor; described in narrative </li></ul>PROPOSAL RISK H M M M L L PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE HC C C SC C C PRICE OR COST $ PRICE / $ PC MISSION CAPABILITY G G R Y Y B
    34. 34. RFP Requirement <ul><li>    BASELINE REQUIREMENTS </li></ul><ul><li>The required threshold performance requirements stated below establish the minimum capability an Offeror’s proposal must meet to be judged acceptable. Any capabilities proposed that exceed these requirements will be considered in the Best Value determination. </li></ul>
    35. 35. Generate Initial Ratings <ul><li>General Notes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>If approach to meet a requirement is too unclear to evaluate for impact to cost, schedule, or performance, it is likely a Proposal Inadequacy (PI) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If the Offeror does not exhibit clear understanding of a requirement, it may be a proposal inadequacy. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If any Proposal Inadequacy (PI) is un-resolvable, it may become a deficiency </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If requirement is not met, it is likely a Deficiency </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Here we would generate a proposed EN and rate YELLOW or RED and the rating would roll-up </li></ul></ul>
    36. 36. <ul><li>Exchanges/Clarifications </li></ul><ul><li>Discussions </li></ul>
    37. 37. Exchanges <ul><li>“ Exchanges” is a term describing the transfer of information between the PSC/Gov’t and Offerors </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Before receipt of proposals - information gathering </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>After receipt of proposals: Clarifications, Communications, and Discussions/Negotiations </li></ul></ul>Limitations on Exchanges <ul><li>PSC/Govt personnel shall NOT engage in conduct that: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>favors one offeror over another </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>reveals one offeror’s sensitive info to another offeror </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>reveals an offeror’s price w/o offeror permission </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>reveals names of persons providing past performance info </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>knowingly discloses sensitive selection information </li></ul></ul>
    38. 38. Clarifications <ul><li>Limited exchanges, between the PSC/govt and offerors, that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. </li></ul><ul><li>If award without discussions is possible, offerors may clarify </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Relevance of past performance info </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Adverse past performance not previously rebutted </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Resolve minor or clerical errors </li></ul></ul><ul><li>RFP must provide for award w/o discussion </li></ul>Communications <ul><li>Exchanges between the PSC/govt and offerors after receipt of proposals that leads to establishment of the competitive range </li></ul><ul><li>Occurs before establishment of competitive range </li></ul><ul><li>Resolves question of whether the offeror is IN or OUT of the competitive range </li></ul>
    39. 39. Discussions / Negotiations <ul><li>Exchanges between the PSC/govt and offerors with intent of allowing offeror to revise its proposal. </li></ul><ul><li>Take place after establishment of the competitive range </li></ul><ul><li>Tailored to each offeror’s proposal </li></ul><ul><li>Conducted by the CO with PSC/AST with each offeror in the competitive range </li></ul>
    40. 40. <ul><li>Decisions </li></ul><ul><li>& </li></ul><ul><li>Debriefings </li></ul>
    41. 41. Decision Phase <ul><li>Complete Draft PAR </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Coordinate based on AST/SAC recommendations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Present at end of briefing if SA agrees with recommendations in decision briefing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If SA does not agree, take action to update PAR and provide to SA </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Draft SDD and coordinate </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Present at end of briefing if SA agrees with recommendations in decision briefing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If SA does not agree, take action to update SDD and provide to SA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Complete SDD, as appropriate </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Normal notifications: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Congress notified of successful offerors(s) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>SA calls offerors soon after decision/Congressional notification </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>PCO confirms decision in writing </li></ul></ul>
    42. 42. Debriefings
    43. 43. Debriefings <ul><li>Before award </li></ul><ul><li>Offerors excluded from Step two competition </li></ul><ul><li>Post-award </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Both successful and unsuccessful offerors </li></ul></ul><ul><li>CO with SA or AST Chair should lead debriefing delegation </li></ul><ul><li>Use the Charts From the SA Decision Briefing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Show each Offeror his Strengths/Deficiencies/Weaknesses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If show strengths/deficiencies/weaknesses of successful offeror, get concurrence from winner to ensure no transfer of proprietary information </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Do not allow extensive discussion (arguments) </li></ul><ul><li>Having evaluation data base during debrief has avoided protests </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Detailed audit trail can be used to show offeror specific comments </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Some contractors will be emotional about losing--be prepared! </li></ul><ul><li>Don’t mention Winner’s attributes if not on charts </li></ul><ul><li>Avoid comparing proposals! </li></ul>
    44. 44. SUMMARY <ul><li>PSC contractor is evaluating & recommending </li></ul><ul><li>AST is providing “Inherently Governmental” functions </li></ul><ul><li>within the PSC selection process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>approving evaluation level decisions (e.g. assigning ratings) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>advice to PSC evaluators </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>recommends/approves release of evaluation notices </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>recommendations to AF decision makers </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Evaluation must follow the approved Competition </li></ul><ul><li>Plan/RFP </li></ul><ul><li>Procurement Integrity applies to all parties </li></ul>
    45. 45. SUMMARY <ul><li>THINK! </li></ul><ul><li>Comments are the Foundation! </li></ul><ul><li>RFP (Section 5) is the only criteria </li></ul><ul><li>Document the Audit Trail in the evaluation documents </li></ul><ul><li>Follow the Process! </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Courts support teams that follow their documented process </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>So read and understand the CP & Evaluation process </li></ul></ul>
    46. 46. QUESTIONS???

    ×