Conditions: You are assigned as a Contingency Contracting Officer (CCO) and have access to current acquisition regulations, local procedures, and required automation and office supplies. You have been assigned to conduct the Source Selection Process.
Standards: Source selection process was conducted IAW Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures (DoD-SSP) and resulted in a well documented selection of the best value proposal.
Performance Steps:
NOTE: The DoD-SSP became effective 1 July 2011. The Army Source Selection Manual (ASSM), AFARS Appendix AA is effective until removed. However, the DoD SSP takes precedent when there are conflicts between it and the ASSM. Follow any supplemental guidance issued by Army (DASA(P)) and/or USACE as it becomes available. See the Reference material for a briefing on the DoD SSP and how it differs from the ASSM.
NOTE: PIL 2008-11, Contract Source Selection Guidance, 29 JUL 2008, provides specific guidance on informal and formal source selections in USACE.
NOTE: Contingency contracting source selection is governed by Field Manual (FM) 4-100.2 (formerly FM 100-10-2), Contracting Support on the Battlefield, and AFARS Manual No. 2, Contingency Contracting.
1. Confirm all necessary arrangements have been made for the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) training and evaluations. Following is a list of administrative support considerations:
a. Adequate facilities (to include space for the evaluators and related meetings and for
discussions with offerors): Consider whether the facilities are of an adequate size, capable of segregation of committees, comfortable, properly furnished, secure, disabled accessible, and close to support
services such as copiers, restrooms, and eating facilities.
b. Security controls, such as identification badges and access control c. Secure storage space for proposals and source selection materials d. Appropriate computer hardware and software and related support
e. Adequate telephones, facsimile machines, copiers and/or printing services located in secure areas and Audio/Video Teleconferencing capabilities that can be secured.
f. Adequate office supplies
g. Lodging and transportation for personnel on temporary duty (TDY).
2. Provide SSEB training.
NOTE: The purpose of the SSEB is to perform an in-depth, systemic evaluation of proposals against evaluation factors and subfactors set forth in the solicitation, and to document deficiencies, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and uncertainties in each proposal. While the specific evaluation processes and tasks will vary between source selections, the basic objective is to provide the Source Selection Authority (SSA) with information to make an informed and reasoned selection.
Chapter 2, p 62
NOTE: While SSEB training is often conducted as the first course of business once the SSEB is convened, a best practice is to conduct the training prior to receipt of proposals to ensure that all evaluators have reviewed and are familiar with the solicitation, evaluation criteria, source selection plan and process, particularly if there are any members of the SSEB who have not previously participated in a source selection.
NOTE: USACE has developed a new Proponent Sponsored Engineer Training course PROSPECT 183 – Formal Source Selection to facilitate enterprise-wide training on proper source selection procedures.
NOTE: Ensure all members of the Source Selection Organization (SSO) have signed a certificate (Source Selection Participation Agreement), which addresses nondisclosure of information, conflicts of interest and rules of conduct. Retain the certificates in the contract file. Often the Contracting Officer (KO) and counsel attend the training and beginning of the SSEB meeting to provide guidance and review the rules of conduct with the SSEB members.
NOTE: To adequately determine whether conflicts of interest may exist, review the names of offerors and subcontractors with the SSEB to ensure none of the evaluators have any financial interests with the firms.
NOTE: Ensure a complete solicitation as amended is available to the SSEB during evaluations.
NOTE: Be sure to update the Source Selection Plan (SSP) if any of the criteria or relevant instructions to offerors were amended during the solicitation period.
NOTE: The importance of adequate documentation of the evaluation of each factor and subfactor cannot be overemphasized. Specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies and risks, with reference to the
location in the proposal and solicitation shall all be captured on the evaluation form to document the basis for each assigned rating.
3. Identify and document areas of the proposal that are resolvable through clarifications or communications.
NOTE: An important distinction between clarifications and discussions is that clarifications cannot result in a proposal revision. If it is necessary for the offeror to revise its proposal in order to respond to or document the response to the question, then the question must be identified as an Item for Negotiation (IFN) and may only be asked if a competitive range is established and the offeror is determined to be within the competitive range.
4. Prepare an initial evaluation identifying and documenting proposal deficiencies, strengths, weaknesses, risks and associated IFNs.
NOTE: For Design/Build contracts, evaluators must identify any betterments that were considered to be advantageous to the government and for which additional consideration was given. Betterments that were not considered strengths should also be noted for debriefing purposes.
NOTE: Coordinate with the Small Business Advisor for evaluation of the small business evaluation criteria.
NOTE: The Small and Small Disadvantaged Subcontracting Plan (if required) is not evaluated as part of the technical evaluation (although participation by small business is often an evaluation factor). Refer to local policy regarding review and scoring of the Subcontracting Plans. Ensure plans are reviewed concurrently with SSEB evaluations so that any discussion questions or IFNs are identified.
5. Assign adjectival ratings for non-cost evaluation factors.
NOTE: Typically evaluators complete individual evaluation sheets and when all evaluators have completed evaluating a proposal a consensus will be conducted with the SSEB. At a minimum, each
evaluation group must convene to discuss the offeror’s proposal in order to share their views on the offeror’s strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies and risks related to their assigned evaluation factor(s)/sub factor(s) and to reach a final consensus rating for each factor and subfactor using the adjectival ratings identified in the Request for Proposal (RFP) and SSP.
NOTE: Simply averaging the individual evaluation results does not constitute consensus. Consensus requires a meeting of the minds on the assigned rating and associated strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies and risks.
NOTE: In exceptional cases where the evaluators are unable to reach an agreement without unreasonably delaying the source selection process, the evaluation report shall include the majority conclusion and the dissenting view(s) with supporting rationale which must be briefed to the SSA.
6. Prepare a summary evaluation report.
NOTE: The SSEB Chair is responsible for preparing the SSEB report.
NOTE: The Soldier is responsible for reviewing the SSEB report prior to briefing the SSA to ensure that it is specific, provides sufficient rationale to support the ratings, and follows the SSP, RFP and DoD-SSP.
7. Evaluate price proposals.
NOTE: Typically the Soldier will review price proposals to determine whether or not they appear
reasonable in comparison with the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) and other proposals. When reviewing price proposals, be sure to review both individual line item prices as well as the overall price to check for unbalanced pricing and determine reasonableness.
NOTE: Typically, for military funded construction contracts, a proposal is considered fair and reasonable if it is within 15% of the IGE or other offerors. This is because EFARS 36.205-100, Cost Limitations in Military Construction Contracts, stipulates that award of a contract for military construction (MILCON) shall be approved by the District/Center Commander when the lowest qualifying bid exceeds the IGE, including profit, by more than 15 percent. For Operation and Maintenance (O&M) installation support construction contracts, the Installation Commander or designee approval shall be obtained prior to award of a contract if the proposed contract price exceeds (1) the Government estimate by more than 15 percent, or (2) the funds initially made available by the installation.
NOTE: For civil funded construction contracts, a proposal is considered fair and reasonable if it is within 25% of the IGE. That is because IGE’s for civil works contracts do not include profit, whereas military IGE’s do. IAW 33 U.S.C. 622 and 624, no civil works construction contract shall be awarded if the con-tract price exceeds the Government estimate prepared in accordance with EFARS 36.203-100 by more than 25 percent.
NOTE: Technical evaluations are conducted without knowledge of offered prices. However, once initial evaluations are concluded, it is permissible for one or more members of the technical evaluation team to serve on the price evaluation team. As a minimum, the Project Manager (PM) or SSEB Chair may need to confirm price reasonableness, particularly for design/build projects where each offeror proposes a different design solution.
8. SSA determines whether award can be made on initial offers or discussions are required.
NOTE: If award on initial offers is in the best interest of the government, proceed to step 11 below.
NOTE: If the SSA determines that discussions are required, even if there is only one offeror that represents the best value to the government, a competitive range must be established and discussions held with all members of the competitive range. In the previous example, a competitive range of one would be established.
Chapter 2, p 64
9. Conduct meaningful discussions and request Final Proposal Revisions (FPR)
NOTE: Be sure to include the following in discussions with offerors (see separate notes below);
IFNs from the technical evaluation,
pricing issues or clerical mistakes revealed during the price evaluation
any responsiveness issues such as signatures, bid guarantees, representations and certifications, or other irregularities that may need to be corrected before award, and
any questions resulting from the review of the subcontracting plan
NOTE: In addition to the items listed above, check to see if any changes have been made to the Davis Bacon Wage Determination(s). If so, prepare an amendment to the solicitation to include with the request for FPR. It is a good practice to issue an SF1442 with the amendment and get updated signatures with the proposal revision(s). This way, the bid acceptance period is reset, and the contractor can
acknowledge any amendments issued after the proposal due date.
NOTE: When writing IFNs it is extremely important to be as clear as possible regarding the deficiency and what information is required from the contractor. Reference the proposal cite and/or solicitation
paragraph requiring the information to assist the contractors with providing a complete response.
Remember, the purpose of discussions is to obtain the best proposal from each offeror so that the government can make the best value determination. Carefully read the IFN to make sure they are written in complete sentences and you understand what the issue is and what is being required. If you don’t understand it, neither will the contractor.
NOTE: When discussing price, point out any Contract Line Identification Numbers (CLINS) that vary from the IGE by more than +/-15% [25% for civil contracts]. Ask the contractor to specifically verify (not confirm) those CLINS that are below the IGE, that there are no mistakes. This will prevent the firm from being eligible for a correction of a mistake discovered after award.
NOTE: There may be instances when there is nothing to discuss with a firm. In this case, notify the firm that they are in the competitive range and are being given an opportunity to revise its proposal.
NOTE: Obtain legal sufficiency review on both the Competitive Range Determination and the Requests for FPRs.
NOTE: In informal source selection, and sometimes in formal source selection in USACE, the KO establishes the common date and time for receipt of FPRs in the same letter that opens discussions.
10. Receive and evaluate FPRs.
NOTE: Ensure a new abstract is prepared and approved as soon as FPRs are received.
NOTE: FPRs are subject to the late proposal provisions in FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition
NOTE: If changes to technical proposals are received, reconvene the SSEB to evaluate the FPRs.
During this evaluation, the offeror’s rating may or may not be revised, depending upon the response.
Ensure SSEB members document any changes to the ratings, and in the case that no change was made, explain why. This will be necessary information to include in the Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) and to communicate to the offeror during debriefings.
11. Document the source selection decision.
NOTE: Even though the Soldier may draft the SSDD for the SSA, it is the SSA’s responsibility to make an independent assessment and document his/her rationale for the source selection decision.
NOTE: Always include a discussion of the price proposals and a fair and reasonable determination for each offer in the SSDD.
NOTE: Obtain legal sufficiency review of the SSDD prior to signature by the SSA.
Evaluation Preparation and Guidance: Setup: Discuss the local procedures related to source selection with the Soldier. Explain and provide examples of SSEB training and related documents.
Discuss what to look for in an SSEB Board Report. Provide an example of a competitive range determination and review it with the Soldier. Provide an example of an SSA briefing, or discuss local procedures for briefing the SSA. Provide an example of an SSDD.
Performance Measures: GO NO-GO
1. Explained the difference between clarifications and discussions _____ ______
2. Prepared and successfully briefed the SSEB _____ ______
3. Prepared and obtained approval of a Competitive Range Determination _____ ______
4. Successfully conducted discussions with offerors in the Competitive Range _____ ______
5. Prepared a thorough and well-reasoned SSDD and obtained approval _____ ______
References: (See DVD for References)
Open the NCO Contracting website at https://kme.usace.army.mil/CoPs/Contracting/default.aspx.
Accessing this site first will allow the hyperlinks to open.
1. AFARS Appendix AA, Army Source Selection Manual 2. AFARS Manual No. 2, Contingency Contracting 3. DoD Source Selection Procedures, 4 MAR 2011 4. DoD Source Selection Procedures Briefing 5. EFARS Part 36
6. FAR Part 15.3, Source Selection 7. FM 4-92 Contracting Support Brigade
8. FM 4-100.2 Contracting Support on the Battlefield 9. GRD-09-09, Contractors Serving on Boards
10. PIL 2008-11, Contract Source Selection Guidance, 29 JUL 2008 11. RPM-08-01, Use of Non-Government Personnel
Chapter 2, p 66 Task 2-13