Source Selection for the Source Selection Official

1
Source Selection for theSource Selection
Official

• U.S. Department of Energy
• Office of Procurement and Assistance Management
• September 29, 2005

2
Preface

• The information contained in these briefing
  materials is intended to provide a general
  orientation to Source Selection Officials (SSO)
  for the conduct of major acquisitions conducted
  pursuant to the Federal Acquisition Regulations
  (FAR) Part 15. This information consists of (1)
  certain regulatory information from the Federal
  Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the Department
  of Energy Acquisition Regulation (DEAR), (2)
  other prescribed requirements, and (3)
  information derived from common practices and
  lessons learned from other acquisitions. This
  orientation material is not a substitute for the
  SSOs understanding of the applicable regulations
  and appropriately applying the regulations and
  good business judgment to the particular
  circumstances of the acquisition. In addition
  these briefing materials are not intended to
  cover every aspect of the acquisition process.
  While the focus of these materials is toward
  major acquisitions, its principles may be
  applied, as appropriate, for other competitive
  acquisitions as well.
• This information is internal DOE briefing
  material. The information contained in these
  materials does not form and should not be
  construed to convey any rights to third parties.

3
Topics of Discussion

• What is Source Selection? Page 4
• Typical Flow of Source Selection Page 5
• Source Selection Authority Page 6
• SSOs Responsibilities Page 7
• Source Evaluation Board Page 9
• Evaluation Factors for Selection Page 11
• Source Selection Decision Page 13
• Best Value and Technical/Cost Trade-off - Page
  17
• Schedule for the Acquisition Page 20
• Procurement Integrity Act Page 21

4
What is Source Selection?

• Source selection is the decision process used
  in competitive, negotiated contracting to select
  the proposal that offers the best value to the
  Government
• The source selection process is governed by
  statute and regulations
• Best value means the expected outcome of an
  acquisition that, in the Governments estimation,
  provides the greatest overall benefit to the
  Government in response to the Governments
  requirement
• The Government official responsible for selecting
  the winning offeror in a negotiated procurement
  is the Source Selection Official (SSO)
• The decision by the SSO has a significant impact
  on the Departments ability to successfully
  accomplish its programmatic missions
• While there are many participants in the source
  selection process, the buck stops with the SSO

5
(No Transcript)
6
Source Selection Authority

• Contracting Officer is responsible for source
  selection, unless agency head appoints another
  individual FAR 15.303(a)
• In DOE the Secretary has delegated source
  selection authority to the Source Selection
  Official (SSO) as follows (AL 2000-09)
• Procurement Executive Major facility management
  contracts (MO, MI, EM remediation)
• Head of Contracting Activity (HCA) All other
  procurement actions
• These delegated authorities may be re-delegated
• SSO authority is delegated to an individual
  person, not a position or title

7
SSOs Responsibilities

• Establish an evaluation team Source Evaluation
  Board (SEB)
• Ensure the SEB is qualified and has the resources
  to accomplish the evaluation
• Ensure the SEB is appropriately briefed and
  follows procurement integrity
• Approve the Acquisition Plan
• Approve the Request for Proposal (RFP)
• Ensure consistency among solicitation
  requirements, e.g., statement of work, proposal
  preparation instructions, evaluation factors,
  contract provisions, etc.
• Assure the statement of work reflects the
  Governments requirements
• Ensure the Rating Plan is consistent with the
  evaluation criteria (Section M)

8
SSOs Responsibilities

• Approve the Rating Plan
• Ensure proposals are evaluated based solely on
  the factors contained in the solicitation
• Consider the evaluations of the SEB, advisory
  boards or panels, and ex-officio members of the
  SEB
• Evaluations must be consistent with the RFP and
  the Rating Plan
• Ensure documentation of the SEB is clear,
  thorough, and complete
• Select the source whose proposal is the best
  value to the government
• Document the selection

9
Source Evaluation Board

• The SSO appoints the SEB Chairman and SEB members
  to conduct the acquisition
• The purpose of the SEB is to solicit and evaluate
  proposals and report its evaluation to the SSO
• Membership should be tailored for the particular
  acquisition to assure a comprehensive evaluation
  of offers and should include, as appropriate,
  contracting, legal, technical, financial, etc.
  FAR 155.303(b)(1)
• SEB members, as a group, should have sufficient
  experience in RFP development and proposal
  evaluations formal training class for the SEB as
  a group is recommended
• SSO should be accessible to the SEB when needed
  SSO should be aware of the activities and
  progress of the SEB
• SSO should expect to be able to rely on the
  assigned Contracting Officer and Legal Advisor to
  assist him/her through the process

10
Source Evaluation Board
SSO
Counsel
Ex-Officio Advisors
SEB Chairman SEB Members
Technical Team
Contracting Officer
Cost Team
Contract Specialist
Business Mgmt. Team
Specialty Advisors
The Contracting Officer may also serve as the
SEB Chairman or an SEB member.

11
Evaluation Factors For Selection(FAR 15.304)

• Represent key areas of importance to be
  considered in selection decision
• Not necessary to evaluate all areas of the
  statement of work
• Limit the evaluation criteria to those critical
  few
• Too many evaluation criteria adds unnecessarily
  to the burden, complexity, and cost to both the
  offerors and the SEB
• Too many evaluation criteria tends to group
  versus separate the offerors
• Identify meaningful discriminators among
  proposals
• Define what will distinguish offerors from each
  other
• Reveal measurable differences or risk levels
  among proposals

12
Evaluation Factors For Selection(FAR 15.304)

• Required areas of evaluation FAR 15.304(c)
• Price or cost
• Quality of product or service
• Past performance
• Extent of small business participation in
  acquisitions not set-aside for small business
  15.304(c)(4)
• The RFP must specify
• The evaluation factors and any sub-factors
• The relative importance of the evaluation factors
  to one another, including cost/price

13
Source Selection Decision (FAR 15.308)

• SSOs decision must be based on a comparative
  assessment of proposals against evaluation
  criteria in the solicitation
• SSOs decision must represent the SSOs
  independent judgment
• May use reports/analysis of others, e.g., SEB
  report, technical/cost team evaluations request
  additional information from the SEB when needed
• Not bound by the findings of the SEB, i.e., the
  SSO can assess a proposal differently as long as
  there is a reasonable basis consistent with the
  proposal and the RFP evaluation criteria
• SSO should discuss issues with SEB, listen to
  dissenting opinions, and consult with
  ex-officios as appropriate
• Not based solely on numerical/adjectival rating
  rather the relative strengths and weaknesses of
  the proposals

14
Source Selection Decision (FAR 15.308)

• In making the selection decision, the SSO may
  choose/need to
• Read proposals or portions thereof
• Read resumes of key personnel
• Attend oral presentations attend all or none for
  consistent treatment of offerors

15
Source Selection Decision (FAR 15.308)

• SSOs decision must be documented in the Source
  Selection Statement
• Succinctly and accurately provides rationale for
  the selection decision
• Explains how the successful offeror compares to
  the other offerors based on the solicitation
  evaluation criteria
• Rationale for any business judgments and
  technical/cost tradeoffs, i.e., the benefits
  associated with additional cost
• Address any significant differences between the
  SSOs judgment and the SEBs evaluation

16
Source Selection Decision (FAR 15.308)

• SEB Recommendation
• SSO may request the SEB to make a selection
  recommendation
• Normally a selection recommendation is not made
  by SEB
• SSOs alternatives, depending on the
  circumstances
• Select source for award
• Request additional analysis of the SEB or others
• Request additional information, e.g., past
  performance
• Establish competitive range and conduct
  discussions
• Determined by the Contracting Officer with
  concurrence by the SSO
• Re-open discussions
• Amend RFP and obtain revised proposals
• Cancel RFP

17
Best Value and Technical/Cost Trade-off (FAR
15.101 DOE DOE Acq. Guide Ch. 15.1, Part X)

• Technical/cost trade-off is a determination of
  whether the value of technical and business
  differences between proposals justify paying a
  higher cost/price
• The technical/cost trade-off does not have to be
  quantified in dollars But, it has to be a
  reasonable, well founded basis for the decision
• If the selected offeror has the highest rated
  technical/business proposal and the lowest
  evaluated price, no trade-off analysis is
  required

18
Best Value and Technical/Cost Trade-off

• The SSO has wide discretion, as long as the
  trade-off is reasonable
• Must be based on strengths/weaknesses and
  differences of proposals vs. price differential,
  i.e., not a mathematical calculation
• Must be consistent with the stated evaluation
  criteria
• The primary bases for a challenge are
• The technical/business evaluations are
  inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation
• The cost/technical tradeoff decision was
  unreasonable
• The probable cost was not well founded and
  documented to support the technical/cost trade-off

19
Best Value and Technical/Cost Trade-off

• Examples of rationale for business judgment and
  tradeoffs are
• The amount of the cost differential
• The criticality of providing the service or
  product and the potential consequences in the
  event of poor performance, i.e., risk
• Rationale for tradeoffs should be reflected in
  the relative importance of the individual
  evaluation criterion

20
Schedule for the Acquisition

• Make it realistic
• If a schedule is published, either internal to
  DOE or publicly, it will become the expectation
• Allow sufficient time for HQ business clearance
  review process and appropriate and necessary
  senior management involvement
• RFP
• SEB Reports
• Source selection documents
• HQ briefings
• Allow sufficient time to hold discussions and to
  resolve protests
• Even if award without discussions is planned,
  discussions may become necessary depending on the
  proposals
• While the schedule may not always be able to
  build in protest time, assure there is a
  contingency plan for continuing work, as necessary

21
Procurement Integrity Act (FAR 3.104 DOE Acq.
Guide Ch. 3)

• Procurement Integrity Act intended to preserve
  the integrity of the Federal procurement process
  and assure fair treatment of bidders, offerors
  and contractors
• The Act covers -
• Current Federal Employees
• Certain Former Employees
• Bidders and Offerors
• Other personnel involved in agency procurements
  and contracts
• Disclosure of proposal information is prohibited
  including
• Any contents of proposals
• Number or names of offerors
• Names of offerors have been publically disclosed
  by DOE when permission was obtained from all of
  the offerors

22
Procurement Integrity Act (FAR 3.104 DOE Acq.
Guide Ch. 3)

• Disclosure of source selection information is
  prohibited
• Source selection information is information
  prepared by the Government for the purpose of
  evaluating a proposal and includes
• Source selection or evaluation plans
• Reports of evaluation panels or boards
• Competitive range report or SEB report
• Draft RFPs are not to be disclosed unless
  released for public comment
• Discussing prospective employment with a
  prospective offeror is prohibited
• Prohibition is on both the Federal employee and
  the company
• If a company makes contact for this purpose,
  report it
• Certain Federal employees involved in the
  evaluation of proposals may not accept employment
  from the selected contractor after the
  procurement is over for a period of 1 year
• Applies to Contracting Officer, SSO, members of
  the SEB and certain others involved in the
  evaluation of proposals

23
Procurement Integrity Act (FAR 3.104 DOE Acq.
Guide, Chapter 3)

• Consider your normal job responsibilities and how
  they may affect your SSO responsibilities, e.g.,
  do you interact with an existing contractor that
  may be a prospective offeror on your procurement
• You may continue to perform your current job, but
  be careful in your interactions to assure they
  are not in any way related to or affect your SSO
  responsibilities and objectivity
• Avoid social interactions with offerors or
  potential offerors
• Disclose anything that may be questionable to the
  Contracting Officer
• Dont dismiss a connection as de minimis
• Disclosure when the event occurs documents the
  matter in case a question arises later
• Disclose any social or private financial
  relationship with anyone who works for an offeror
  or potential offeror
• Disclose any family members (spouse/children)
  association with an offeror during the
  procurement process that may give rise to an
  actual or appearance of a conflict of interest
• Consider your stock and investment interests
• A specific briefing on the Procurement Integrity
  Act by counsel is recommended