Federal Government Acquisition Process

Service Provider Program Details Parts Manufacture Program Details

Preparing a Proposal | Planning | Statement of Work | Source Selection | Metrics/Performance Measures | Trade In Authority

Generally, Federal acquisitions begin with identification of a requirement by a specific Federal activity. A basic idea of what is needed and the problem statement is prepared and the requiring activity meets with an acquisition command having a Contracting Officer with an appropriate warrant issued by a specific acquisition activity.

Contracting Officers have different contracting thresholds and capabilities. Each one has a specific warrant that states the conditions under which they are permitted to engage in Federal contracting. Depending on the contracting activity, some contracting officers may have no experience whatever with the product, service or requirements in question or knowledge of any of the potential vendor base, creating a weakness in the Government procurement process.

Preparing a proposal

Frequently, contractor proposals in response to a Request for Proposals (RFP) include an exact copy of the RFP’s statement of work. An offeror’s response usually indicates their approach to performing the statement of work, their approach to managing the program or project, and examples of past performance on projects similar in size, scope, and complexity.

Evaluator scoring penalizes proposals that contain “fluff” or generic information that does not directly pertain to the specifics of the solicitation—the Government’s need, source selection factors and work statement or performance specification. Charts and other infographics can help a proposal. Examples would be: a six-line chart of the most compelling credentials of contractor’s key personnel, or including a picture of a uniformed security guard on the pages describing contractor’s uniforms. Professional proposal writers often have graphic design experience.

A proposal can be too long, causing the Government’s source selection authority to skim over it. The Government source selection team may not wish to spend much time on the acquisition source selection. Also, it is possible for vendors to put too much information into proposals which do not go to the heart of the acquisition, particularly information not related to the source selection criteria as well as the work statement.

For simple acquisitions, Government source selection authorities have responded favorably to proposals which emphasize experience with the specific requirement that the Government is seeking to source and information on how a product or service will meet the needs of the Government as stated in the source selection factors and the work statement.

Contractors must also be aware of whether or not price is more important than non-price factors. Where price is more important than non-price factors, then the lowest bidder who is technically acceptable in view of the source selection factors and work statement requirements will be selected. Where the solicitation indicates that the requirement is a best value acquisition, then a contractor must draft their proposal to emphasize how their proposed technical solution will meet each and every requirement and source selection factor.

For more complex acquisitions, source selection authorities will be interested in how the contractor will produce service or non-service deliverables. Thus, staffing plans, methodology to produce, past experience, ISO certifications, and other information which shows that risks to the Government acquisition have been identified and mitigated should be rated higher than other proposals which do not show such information. However, it is important that the proposal first and foremost address the solicitation’s work statement or technical specifications and source selection factors.

Contractors must also be aware of the contract clauses in the contract to include requirements for specific standards which do not directly relate to the deliverables in question to include small business or minority set-aside requirements, Davis-Bacon (essentially local union labor rates must be used), specific accounting standards, specific certifications, etc.

Planning

The requiring activity and Contracting Officer, ideally, will commence acquisition planning as a first step to a Federal acquisition. Acquisition planning is described in FAR Part 7, Acquisition Planning, and any agency supplement to the FAR, for example, Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) 207, Acquisition Planning. Components to an agency, such as the US Army, as well as the individual contracting command in question frequently also have an acquisition instruction which includes additional instructions on acquisition planning. For example, the US Army must follow AFARS Part 7, Acquisition Planning.

Acquisition planning is frequently dependent on the circumstances. For example, during World War II, quantity was the key. As in the Civil War, the U.S. achieved victory due in large part to the American industrial base. A war of attrition requires massive quantities of material, but not necessarily of great quality. During the Cold War, quality was key. The United States may not have had as many pieces of equipment as their opposition, but that equipment could be more effective, efficient, or lethal, and offset the opposition’s numerical advantage. Today, the military needs equipment that works where it is needed, is dependable, has a high degree of maintainability, has long-term reliability, is agile, versatile, and avoids equipment choices that result in political debate and partisan politics.

As part of the acquisition planning process, the Government must address its buying power leverage. Many Government acquisition commands write acquisitions solely based on haphazard acquisition strategies that are primarily directed toward avoiding bid protests. Thus, it is necessary to emphasize competition and understand the acquisition from the view point of the contractor; Government acquisition commands should ask what is to be achieved and whether or not the program is really in the best interest of the Government.

Many Federal acquisitions are rushed due to poor time management. In these cases, the tendency is to issue a sole-source contract to known vendors even though FAR Part 6 specifically forbids sole-source contracting when it is due to lack of advanced planning. There is also a high cost premium that is added to the cost of an acquisition when a buyer wants a supplier/vendor to rush to execute a contract or push their contract to the head of all other work the contractor/vendor is executing. It is often said that “if you want it bad, you get it bad.” Accordingly, bad acquisition planning generally produces poor and unjustifiable acquisition outcomes. Thus, it is critical to understand the time resources that are required to properly plan and execute a Federal acquisition. Generally, a Government acquisition for moderate to complex requirements requires at least 120 days.

A variety of factors can affect the contracting process and the contract clauses that are used in a Federal acquisition, including:

• Cost: A number of cost thresholds exist that trigger increasing degrees of complexity in the acquisition process. These thresholds include the micro-purchase threshold, the simplified acquisition threshold, and the commercial items threshold. The micro-purchase threshold, as of August 2007, is generally $3,000, with some exception. No competition or publication requirements are mandated for micro-purchases; generally, the Government Commercial Purchase Card (GCPC) can be used for these purchases under FAR Part 13. From $3,000 to $100,000, agencies may make use of simplified acquisition procedures under FAR Part 13. Blanket purchase agreements, basic ordering agreements, or other contracts may be awarded under simplified procedures, which allow supplies or services to be ordered at a predetermined fair and reasonable price. The simplified acquisition threshold can be increased in situations specified in FAR Part 13, including overseas contingency operations (for example, military operations) and during nuclear/biological/radiological disasters up to the limits described in FAR Part 2, Definitions. FAR Part 13 simplified acquisition procedures can be used up to $5,000,000 ($11M under specified exceptions) under a test program in which Congress continues to reauthorize for acquisition of commercial items under FAR Subpart 13.5, Test Program for Certain Commercial Items. Items must qualify as a commercial item under the definition of FAR Part 2 and be supported by market research as specified in FAR Part 10.
• Type of acquisition (FAR Part 16, Types of Contracts): There are two main types of contracts – fixed price and cost reimbursement. In deciding which type to use, a Contracting Officer’s identification of risk is key. A very well known requirement, such as for commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) items (in which no R&D would be needed and there are no high risk aspects) would be best acquired using a fixed-price contract, in which a price is fixed and includes the contractor’s profit; all risk of cost overrun is transferred to the contractor. A higher risk, more unknown requirement is more suited for cost reimbursement type contracts, in which the contractor is reimbursed for all costs, and is paid a fee above that amount. In this arrangement, cost overrun risk is placed mainly upon the Government.
• Buying patterns: If an agency has a continuing need for a requirement over a period of time, a vehicle that permits multiple orders may be advantageous. For example, a blanket purchasing agreement (BPA) or a basic ordering agreement (BOA) as described in FAR Part 13 may be used, which allow for repeated purchases at predetermined fair and reasonable prices. Above the simplified acquisition threshold, an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract may be executed, as described in FAR Part 16.5.
• Availability of existing contract vehicles: Agencies may use existing BPAs or BOAs, provided that the use is within the general scope of the contract. For example, an agency can make use of Federal Supply Schedules as described in FAR Subpart 8.4. Schedules offered by the General Services Administration (GSA) provide a number of pre-competed contract vehicles that give an immediate ability to obtain goods or services without going through the full contracting process
• Mandatory Sources: FAR Part 8 discusses the mandatory use of certain sources for acquiring some types of supplies and services. These sources include the Federal Prison Industries, various vendors who hire blind and disabled persons, and Federal Supply Schedules. Certain items cannot be purchased by most agencies, such as passenger motor vehicles; all passenger motor vehicles must be purchased by GSA, unless a waiver is obtained. This is due in part to Congressional restrictions on the use of appropriated funds to purchase vehicles and the special authority that GSA has as the Federal Government’s motor pool manager.
• Small Businesses and Socioeconomic Issues: Contracting with small businesses and firms affected by certain socioeconomic factors require a highly complex subset of Government regulation which is described by FAR Parts 19 and 26.
• Other requirements often apply to acquisitions depending upon the circumstances. These can include those listed in FAR Part 36, Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts; FAR Part 41, Acquisition of Utility Services; and FAR Part 37, Service Contracting. Outside of a specified exception, acquisitions having a cost above the simplified acquisition threshold or the special authority under FAR Subpart 13.5 must be performed using the process specified under FAR Part 14, Sealed Bidding, or FAR Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation.
• Workload of the Government contracting office and requiring activity. Contract vehicle selection (primarily indefinitely duration, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) versus stand alone “C” contracts), market research, competition, use of performance incentives (or not), earned valued management system (EVMS) use, length of contract, number of options periods, simplification of source selection strategy and evaluation factors, inattention to fine acquisition details such as with regard to technical data rights, bundling of contract requirements into larger contract vehicles, and other decisions having a direct impact on acquisition outcomes including cost are frequently driven by workload of contracting and requiring activities. Bundling of requirements to reduce contracting actions in particular reduce contracting workload but necessarily create increased risks and other undesirable impacts to include reduction of potential vendors who directly accomplish the work in question (thereby increasing subcontracting and decreasing specific experience with particular categories of work by prime contractors). Overbundling also reduces competition by reducing the number of vendors willing to take responsibility as a prime integrator over areas that are not in their core business. At some point, bundling reduces vendor base to so called prime integrators who do little to none of the work in house.

An acquisition plan may have numerous elements as listed in FAR 7.105; depending upon the estimated cost of the acquisition, these elements include:

• Statement of need and background
• Applicable conditions
• Cost
• Life cycle costs if applicable
• Capability or performance
• Delivery or performance requirements
• Tradeoffs – expected consequences of tradeoffs among cost, capability and schedule
• Milestone chart depicting acquisition objectives
• Plan of action
• Potential sources
• Competition plan – whether full and open competition used, and if not, justification
• Source selection procedures
• Acquisition considerations
• Potential Government furnished information, equipment or services
• Security and/or force protection considerations
• Budgeting and funding
• Product or service description
• Logistics considerations
• Environmental considerations
• Contract administration issues
• Participants in acquisition plan preparation (including source selection committee)

During the planning of an acquisition, several key aspects of the effort are decided, including:

• The degree of competition required under FAR Part 6, Competition Requirements (i.e., full and open competition, full and open competition after exclusion of sources, or other than full and open competition, also called “sole-source”)
• Publication requirements for the acquisition (FAR Part 5, Publicizing Contract Actions)
• Preparation of the SOW/PWS – a document that specifies the “who, what, when, where, how” of the contract; it must be specific enough for the contractor to adequately price the requirement and to be enforceable in court. Measurable outcomes must be stated clearly.
• Required amount and type of funding for the proposed acquisition
• Contract line item number (CLIN) structure: this is generally in Section B of an issued contract that is constructed in the Uniform Contract Format. The CLIN Schedule is what the offeror prices in their offer/proposal. It is often advantageous to construct a CLIN Schedule that matches an outline of the work statement. Failure to properly structure the CLIN structure to the contents of a work statement can lead to an inability to determine how much a contractor should be paid or penalized if performance issues arise.
• Source selection criteria (SSC): Source selection criteria “1) Represent the key areas of importance and emphasis to be considered in the source selection decision; and (2) Support meaningful comparison and discrimination between and among competing proposals.” (FAR 15.304, Evaluation factors and significant subfactors).
• Independent Government cost estimate
• Market research: Market research is a critical part of knowledge-based acquisitions. Information-driven and informed decision-making requires complete information to execute successful acquisitions. FAR Part 10, Market Research, gives guidance on the process of market research and its role in Federal acquisitions.
• Acquisition Risks: Risk in contracting falls into three categories – schedule risk, performance risk and cost risk. Risks to the acquisition, including negative past experiences, must be identified and mitigation measures and risk allocation between the Government and a potential vendor determined.
• Government provided equipment, resources, support or information: Often, the Government must provide for equipment, logistics support, information, and many other items vital to performance of a contract. If there are proprietary information in the potential Government furnished information (GFI), then measures must be taken to avoid violation of applicable regulations.

Effective market research assists the Government in:

• understanding industry terminology,
• understanding the basic concepts of the desired service or equipment item,
• identifying potential contractors that provide the item
• determining the correct scope of the requirement to best fit the vendor base
• Lack of adequate market research often results in contracts that fail to achieve the customer’s expectations. Requiring activities are sometimes asked to write work statements on subject matter with which they have little experience. Persons with little knowledge as to how to conduct market research must seek training or guidance or apply the same common sense they would use if they were buying a high value item for themselves.

Stripped Down Components

1. Work statement: Deliverable list with performance and objective specifications if not a service contract (no brand names except as example)

• • Measurable outcome deliverables in a service contract
  • Construction or architecture & engineering (A&E) (FAR Part 36)
  • Schedule / milestones (included in work statement)

1. CLINS matched tightly with work statement structure/outline
2. Source selection criteria

Risk

Contracting is all about risk allocation and minimizing risk to include cost, schedule and performance. The more vague the contract work statement, the more risk that the Government assumes.

• Risk from Program Manager, Contracting and Investor’s Perspective:

Risk. A measure of the inability to achieve program objectives within defined cost and schedule constraints. Risk is associated with all aspects of the program, for example, threat, technology, design processes, Work breakdown structure (WBS) elements, etc. It has two components, the probability of failing to achieve a particular outcome, and the consequences of failing to achieve that outcome.

• Risk from a Lawyer’s Standpoint:

Does this contract adequately describe all essential work / expectations, is there a schedule and is it enforceable? What are our remedies, if any?

Requiring activities and frequently contracting officers want to get an acquisition on contract as quickly as possible; sometimes too quickly. Thus, contracting officers and acquisition attorneys will frequently have to carefully review the overall acquisition to identify risks to cost, schedule and performance and recommend mitigation measures to decrease these risk areas.

• Risk from an Investor’s perspective:

What is my expected payoff? The larger the expected payoff, the larger the associated risk, and vice versa. An Investor, who is a shareholder in a contracting company, will seek to carefully balance the expected payoff with the associated risk, and he is incentivized to seek a large payoff, as long as the risk is acceptable. This perspective is unique in the sense that risk represents both opportunity and danger to the Investor, while it only represents danger to the Program Manager and the Lawyer.

In other words, there is a misalignment in the perception of risk between the Program Manager, the Lawyer, and the Investor. It is ultimately the Investor who owns the contracting company, and this misalignment will have an effect on the Investor’s behavior and the stock’s performance.

Requirement Overbundling

Cost, schedule and performance risk can be increased by over-bundling of a requirement into a single acquisition vehicle. Over-bundling dries up the possible vendor base that might otherwise compete for a requirement. Thus, it is critical that an evaluation of the possible vendors who might compete for the overall work statement / deliverables be accomplished. For example, having a work statement for asphalt roads, space shuttles, hot dog carts, movie projectors and skyscrapers is unlikely to get a good vendor; only a prime integrator will bid on that type of bloated requirement, thereby stacking a tremendous amount of overhead into the price of the acquisition. In the best-case scenario, the prime integrator will merely go out and contract with the vendors the Government should have gone with in the first place. The worst case is the prime integrator will mismanage outsourcing to their subcontractors and poor results will ensue. Overhead costs of over 100% of the price of the subcontractors is not uncommon in this situation, especially in Iraq. This analysis will frequently require splitting up a requirement into different pieces. The bundling of a requirement also has the very bad effect of making the SSCs and CLIN structure difficult to use in source selection, price evaluation and contract administration.

Overbundled requirements frequently suffer from very vague requirements and work statements, particularly in service contracts. In service contracts, the CLIN structure is priced on a per person per hour basis rather than on the service work deliverables themselves. Government or contractor ability to prepare cost or price estimates for vague work statements is severely limited; Accordingly, the Government will negotiate a labor rate, number of people and individual qualifications for the requirement given that is the only feasible way to get an idea of cost. However, use of per person/per hour pricing for services is a poor contracting practice given the Government retains virtually all performance, cost and schedule risk given the contractor has fully performed under the CLIN statement when they provide the qualified body, rather than providing the needed service. One could argue that a CLIN statement which overbundles work in even a well written work statement and prices the work on a per person/per hour basis with limits on the numbers of person and types of qualifications the contractor can use is in contradiction to the work statement given the means the Government has asked the contractor to price the contract bears no relationship to the actual work itself and the Government is directing the contractor on how to execute the requirement – thus interfering with contractor performance and a sign of an employee-employer relationship rather than an independent contracting relationship. Also, the CLIN structure which prices on a per person basis or per hour basis generally pays for such persons on an annual basis rather than merely for the service on an a la carte or as-needed basis, therefore driving up costs in many cases. Pricing on a per person or per hour basis is a sign that a contract likely also qualifies as a personal services contract under FAR Part 37 – technically violating at least the spirit, if not the letter, of the Classification Act and FAR Part 37 except in specific circumstances and with specific determinations and findings.

Use of prime integrators in overbundled contracts sometimes has led to poor results in a number of major systems acquisitions. For example, what would happen if say the US Navy went too far in allowing contractors to make choices that make economic sense in the specific acquisition but add cost to the overall Navy? Example is a prime integrator who gets a good deal on a specific radar system that is not used in any other ship system – makes this specific buy cheaper but overall this costs the Navy a great deal of money given a lack of interoperability that drives a need to stand up training schools, supply system, work force increase, etc.

Over-bundling makes it easy for contracting, but many times, especially for complex acquisitions, does not deliver the results expected by the customer or war fighter for complex acquisitions, especially acquisitions that the acquisition command in question has little experience with or has substantial turn over of personnel during the life of the acquisition.

Small business acquisitions have mandatory restrictions on over-bundling. However, non-small business acquisitions are not subject to the same rules.

Example of how over-bundling causes big problems (permutations and evaluation of total price in source selection): Lets say a requiring activity wants to get polling services. Acquisition planning reveals there are five polls in ten different regions. However, it turns out that the Government will only be ordering one of the five polls in any real numbers and that particular poll is much more expensive in actual cost than the other four. If a weighting scheme is not applied to this bundled requirement, a vendor can make the four lightly ordered polls very cheap in their offer and the high volume poll very expensive, based on their knowledge of the ordering patterns of the Government in past acquisitions. Thus, on its face, the overall price of a bid when each poll is added together to arrive at a total price (used in source selection) would look attractive but in practice, the Government will burn through its budget very quickly given the vast majority of the actually ordered polls are extremely expensive (even though the actual cost of the most frequently ordered poll is far less than what was in the offer). To avoid the headache of a weighting scheme, all five polls should be broken apart and contracted for separately so they can be judged on their merits. This is an example of what is frequently done on major indefinite duration, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts and explains why some acquisitions are appallingly expensive and require additional funding to achieve the requiring activity’s objectives.

Statement of Work

The statement of work (SOW) is a formal document submitted along with the request for proposal (RFP) to a vendor that defines the work to be performed, the location of the work, the deliverable schedule, applicable performance standards, any special requirements (e.g., security clearances, travel, and special knowledge), and the period of performance.

Source Selection

The Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) applies to the personnel that engage in Federal source selections to include prohibitions on gifts to source selection personnel, restrictions on dissemination of procurement sensitive information and post Government employment restrictions.

Source selection refers to the process for evaluating contractor proposals or quotes submitted in response to a request for proposals (RFP) or request for quotes (RFQ) based on the contract solicitation. Source selection is driven by what instructions to offerors clause is included in the contract solicitation (e.g., FAR 52.212-2 with the tailored language spelling out what the source selection criteria are, weighting, etc.).

After the requiring activity has written their SOW/PWS, figured out source selection approach, then selected factors and subfactors, then figured out weighting of non cost/price factors, then understood consequences of the above, they write a source selection plan (SSP). A SSP gives instructions to a source selection committee on how to evaluate each proposal. Courts will defer to the source selection committee’s business judgment, so facts must be included to base a decision on; the source selection committee must not be arbitrary or lack facts in the record for their findings.

Ultimately, risk evaluation is where a source selection team wants to be. That is what is used to determine weakness, significant weakness and deficiencies, which are briefed to unsuccessful offerors. Making the connection between risk evaluation/source selection criteria/factors and offeror proposals is what source selection is all about

The process used for source selection can be selected from FAR Parts 13, Simplified Acquisition, 14, Sealed Bidding or 15, Contracting by Negotiation.

Contractors competing for a Government requirement have an opportunity to request clarification or amendment of a work statement or solicitation. The request for clarification must be done relatively early in the acquisition process, preferably as close to the publication of a solicitation, RFQ, RFP or other publication. Frequently contracting officers will agree to such clarifications if a contractor’s request is well reasoned.

Key principles for source selection:

• Tell them what basis you are going to award it on (award criteria) (tell them)
• Award it based on what you said you would award it based on (do what you said you would do)
• Document what you did. (Tell them that you did what you said you would do in the first place) More is better as long as it makes sense.
• If discussions are held, read the bid protests on discussions first to make sure you understand how to do it.
• Competitive Range – Defined at FAR 15.305(c) – used “if discussions are to be conducted ….” Competitive Range is a tool that you use when you expect many proposals so only the most competitive proposals need to be evaluated. FAR 15.209: “If the Government intends to make award AFTER DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OFFERORS IN THE COMPETITIVE RANGE … insert [provision at 52.21501 …]”

Offers excluded from competitive range must follow notification procedures at 15.503(a) and debriefing procedures at FAR 15.305(c)(4). Do NOT use competitive ranges to exclude offers/proposals unless solicitation stated discussions were going to be used. FAR 15.306(c). If a competitive range is used, you MUST send pre-award notifications to offerors thus excluded. An agency entering into discussions must provide “meaningful discussions” (See GAO decisions on this issue).

If FAR Part 15 is used, there MUST be a proposal evaluation under FAR 15.305 to include a “fair and reasonable” price determination under FAR 15.305(a)(1), a past performance evaluation under FAR 15.305(a)(2) and a technical evaluation under FAR 15.305(a)(3).

For each factor rating, identify each offeror’s key strengths, uncertainties and deficiencies of the proposal and then explain how the strengths, uncertainties and deficiencies resulted in that rating. Focus specifically on the factors and subfactors specifically stated in the solicitation/instructions to offerors. Do not use unstated source selection criteria to select the winning offer.

Discuss those discriminators that make one offeror better than another based on the selection criteria. Be as detailed and focused upon discriminators as the source selection results allow. If something was not a discriminator then say so and also state why it was not. If the strength had no bearing on the offerors rating, state so.

Adequately address the impact of past performance on the decision; remember, no past performance is rated NEUTRAL!!

A drafter of the source selection decision document must show the source selection authorities thought process and reasons behind the comparative analysis. Use a declaration of thinking/intent on the part of the source selection authority (SSA). For example: I selected; I thought; I determined; I reviewed; etc.

Source selections cannot compare the offers against each other. Only against the award criteria.

Spend some time on the summary to make it correct as it is very important. It is meant to very quickly put in words the best of the key discriminators used by the SSA to reach their decision.

Don’t focus the discussion on only one offeror. The Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) compares assessments of the successful offeror against the others. If there are a large number of offerors, the detailed discussion may be limited to the most highly rated offerors. Some light discussion of lower rated offerors is needed when a competitive range is not established.

Don’t use ratings with contradicting supporting language, such as a “not detailed” rated “excellent.” Examine ratings closely as they relate to your technical discussions. Ensure they are consistent (i.e., avoid having a weakness discussed in one proposal evaluation and not another proposal having the same weakness).

Don’t identify or list weaknesses without discussing them and their importance to the thought process.

Don’t treat a neutral performance confidence assessment favorably or unfavorably. (Don’t disqualify an offeror for having a neutral rating.) No past performance must be rated as neutral under FAR Part 13 and FAR Subpart 15.3.

Ensure that, when documenting an award decision in the SSDD, SSA’s are focusing on the underlying advantages and disadvantages of the proposals rather than merely the ratings themselves. HoveCo, B-298697:

Agency regulations frequently provide guidance on source selections: See for example, AFARS 5115.308 Source selection decision – “A source selection decision document must be prepared for all source selections and reflect the SSA’s integrated assessment and decision. The document must be the single summary document supporting selection of the best value proposal consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. It must clearly explain the decision and documents the reasoning used by the SSA to reach a decision. The document should be releasable to the General Accounting Office and others authorized to receive proprietary and source selection information. When releasing a copy to offerors or to anyone not authorized to receive proprietary and source selection information, redacted material should be limited to that which is proprietary and that which must continue to be protected as source selection information.”

Consistency: what is bad for one proposal is bad for all; find an adverse comment, then look at of the proposals of the other bidders and see if the same problem exists in there and was not written up in the evaluation for those proposals. What is good for one proposal is good for all proposals (See above)

Take a hard look at definitions in instructions given to source selection committee – look at the words in them; start with the worst definition, i.e., unacceptable, look at the words in it, then see if those words show up in evaluations that are rated higher than that definition in the rating worksheets.

If you have something bad in the proposal you want to win, then acknowledge it in your source decision document, and STATE THAT IT DID NOT AFFECT YOUR DECISION OF X REGARDING RATING OF THAT PROPOSAL!!! – if the same thing is bad in another proposal, then say the same thing in that one as well.

The word “non-responsive” IS ONLY USED IN SEALED BIDDING! It should NEVER be used in FAR Parts 13 or 15 evaluation processes. Packages missing things are just rated lower for example, poor, good, unacceptable or IAW FAR of weakness, significant weakness, etc.

Compare SOW and delivery schedules on solicitation (for example, RFP/RFQ) to what is in proposals word for word to see if everything was addressed. State if something is missing to justify lower ratings; talk about everything that applies for each award criteria to “pile on” good comments for proposals you like; then show that more good was said about the ones you liked, and less good was said about the ones you don’t.

Do the best you can with bad source selection or award criteria. Just make sure it is consistently applied

Source Selection Criteria

Source Selection Criteria (SSC) can be simple or complex depending on the subject of the acquisition. If FAR Part 15 is used, then a concept called best value can be used; best value simply is an idea that the lowest bidder is not necessarily the winner of a competition – rather, an evaluation of the overall offer based on specified SSCs is accomplished and a source selection decision is accomplished (see below) based on those specified SSCs using a fact-based business judgement of the acquiring activity.

SSCs can vary widely in complexity depending on the acquisition process used, for example, FAR Part 13, Simplified Acquisition, or FAR Part 15, Negotiated Procurement. For example, under FAR Part 15, there is a range of source selection models including:

1. Lowest Price (LP) that is Technically Acceptable (TA) based on statement of work (SOW) (LPTA) (use this for VERY SIMPLE BUYS – for example, pencils)
2. LPTA with Past Performance (partial tradeoff) (more complicated)
3. Full Tradeoff based on LP, TA, past performance and stated criteria including SOW (VERY COMPLICATED BUYS) (sometimes known as best value)
   1. Do not have to select lowest price
   2. Can select higher priced proposal that provides better solution to objectives
   3. A Business Judgment-based decision with rational basis

If FAR Part 13, simplified acquisition is used, then a contracting officer can select from a range of processes including Government Purchase Card (GPC) for purchases under the micro-purchase threshold (see definition section of FAR for current value (for example, in U.S., it is currently $2,500), simplified acquisition threshold (see FAR definition section, currently up to $150,000 within the U.S. with certain exceptions), or up to $6.5M for commercial items/services. Under FAR Part 13, contracting officers are not required to use FAR Part 15 processes or follow the publication requirements of FAR Part 5, however they MUST create their own processes to follow.

Vendor past performance is generally included as a source selection criteria. It is important to include a requirement for “recent and relevant” past performance.

Inadequate SSCs renders the best work statement and CLIN worthless.

Metrics/Performance Measures

A metric is a meaningful measurement taken over a period of time that communicates vital information about a process or activity, leading to fact-based decisions.

Focus on where things go bad – not resource effective to measure everything. Instead, select the critical few metrics for mission essential processes, process that have historically experienced chronic problems or process choke points and monitor them.

• Characteristics of a good metric:
  • Meaningful to the customer
  • Simple, understandable, logical and repeatable
  • Shows a trend
  • Clearly defined
  • Data that’s economical to collect
• Timely
  • Drives appropriate action (this is most important feature of a good metric)
  • Shows how organizational goals and objectives are being met through tasks and processes

Trade-In or Sales Authority

40 USC 181(c) provides: “In acquiring personal property, any executive agency, under regulations to be prescribed by the Administrator, subject to regulations prescribed by the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy pursuant to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act may exchange or sell similar items and may apply the exchange allowance or proceeds of sale in such cases in whole or in part payment for the property acquired . . . . . .”

The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 gives agencies general authority to sell personal property and use the proceeds to replace similar property during the same fiscal year or the next one, like a used car trade-in.

The Miscellaneous Receipts Act (31 USC 3302) mandates that funds received by the US Government must be deposited in the miscellaneous receipts account at the US Treasury unless a specific exemption was authorized by Congress. The Miscellaneous Receipts Act prevents the Executive Branch from financing itself except as specifically authorized by Congress. 40 USC 181(c) thus is necessary to ensure a command that essentially trades or sells items, frequently information technology (IT) equipment, can retain the receipts from the trade in or sale and apply them to acquisition of replacement items.