Source Selection – The
Good and Not So Good
Breakout Session #: F01
Steve Busch, VP Acquisition Programs
Kepler Research Inc.
Date: Tuesday, July 26
Time: 4:00pm–5:15pm
AGENDA
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Current DoD Policy
Waivers
Best Value Continuum
Requirements Development
Acquisition Planning
Methodologies
Initial Evaluation
End Game
2
QUESTIONS
• Who should drive the acquisition
planning phase?
• What are the key questions in
determining source selection
methodology?
• What are the barriers to performing a
risk assessment?
• Should cost/price be part of the risk
assessment process?
• How good are we at determining the
probable cost?
− Product acquisitions
− Service acquisitions
3
Current DoD Policy
• SSP approved prior to 1 May 2016
− Use old procedures
• New procedures apply >$10M for all
competitive acquisitions except
− FAR 8.4 FSS
− FAR Part 12 used in conjunction with FAR
part 15 and >$10M FAR 13 & 14
− FAR Part 35 and 36
− 15 USC 638 SBIR, etc
4
Waivers
>$1B
•DPAP
•In Writing
<$1B
•SPE
•In Writing
5
Source Selection Techniques
Schematic of Best Value Continuum
Acceptable or Not
Acceptable;
Lowest Cost
Lowest Priced Technically
Acceptable (LPTA)
• Requirements well defined;
Risk of unsuccessful
performance minimal; and no
value, need or willingness to
pay for higher performance
Value Adjusted Total
Evaluated Price
Tradeoff
More Evaluation
Factors Used
Subjective Trade-Off
Method
• Award based on a
cost benefit trade-off
analysis
6
Requirements Development
• Requirements owner key player in process
− Provide clear, concise and descriptive
requirements
− Ensure requirements are stable, reviewed
and validated by the appropriate authority
− Assist in selecting the tradeoff methodology
− Identify resources required to conduct the
source selection
7
Acquisition Planning
• Risk assessment is critical in developing
source selection criteria
• Early industry involvement essential
• Funded requirements
• Robust market research
• Utilize DRFP
8
How Do We Select The Best
Methodology
• Well defined requirements and well
understood by industry
• What are the discriminators
• What areas are low/high risk
• What areas will enhancements benefit
the Government
– How significant is cost/price relative to
enhancements/above minimum
performance in execution
– What are the risks and what are the risk
drivers associated with unsuccessful
performance
9
Methodology Selection
• PM or Requirements owner in consultation
with Contracting Officer
• Consider hybrid approaches
– Subjective and objective criteria
• OCI
• Past Performance
• FOCI
• Other?
• Determine discriminators
– Don’t evaluate everything in PWS, SOW,
Spec, etc
• Understand the order of importance at the
factor and subfactor level
– Becomes the roadmap for SST, SSAC, and
SSA
10
Methodology 1 -Ratings
Blue/Outstanding
Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and
understanding of the requirements and contains
multiple strengths
Purple/Good
Proposal indicates and thorough approach and
understanding of the requirements and contains
at least one strength
Green/Acceptable
Proposal indicates an adequate approach
Yellow/Marginal
Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate
approach and understanding of the requirements
Red/Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and, thus,
contains one or more deficiencies and is
unawardable
11
METHODOLOGY 1 –
SUGGESTED DEFINITIONS
Exceptional Approach and
Understanding
Thorough Approach and
Understanding
Adequate Approach and
Understanding
Proposal describes an extraordinary approach
that meets all requirements and identifies or
acknowledges all major tasks to meet the
requirements in great detail demonstrating a
very comprehensive and in-depth
understanding of the task complexity.
Proposal describes an approach that meets all
requirements and identifies or acknowledges
all of the major tasks to meet the requirements
with significant detail to demonstrate that it
has a complete understanding of the task
complexity.
Proposal describes an approach that meets the
requirements and identifies/acknowledges
most of the major tasks in their proposal in
enough detail to demonstrate that they have a
sufficient level of understanding of the
complexity of the tasks.
12
TECHNICAL RISK
• Added unacceptable
− Proposal contains a material failure or a
combination of significant weaknesses that
increases the risk of unsuccessful performance
to an unacceptable level
− Essential the definition of a
deficiency
− ? If a deficiency drives color
(Red) can it also drive
unacceptable risk
13
Methodology 2 –
Technical/Risk Ratings
Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and
understanding of the requirements and contains multiple
strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low
Proposal indicates and thorough approach and
Purple/Good
understanding of the requirements and contains at least
one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to
moderate
Green/Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and
understanding of requirements, and risk of unsuccessful
performance is no worse than moderate
Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and
Yellow/Marginal
understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of
unsuccessful performance is high
Red/Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and, thus, contains
one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of
unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is
unawardable
Blue/Outstanding
14
TECHNICAL RISK DEFINITIONS
Low
Moderate
High
Unacceptable
Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to
cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of
performance. Normal contactor effort and normal Government
monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.
Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of
weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule,
increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor
emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to
overcome difficulties.
DOES ONE SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESS DRIVE MODERATE?
Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of
weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of
schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. It is
unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor
emphasis and close Government monitoring.
Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant
weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to
an unacceptable level.
15
VALUE ADJUSTED TOTAL
EVALUATED PRICE TRADEOFF
• Total Evaluated Price determined for each offeror
• Value placed on better performance is identified and
quantified in the RFP
− Provides information if the additional costs of offering
better performance will put the offeror in a better position
in the source selection
• SST must monetize the higher rated technical attributes
• ?What would be a good candidate for this evaluation
methodology
• How good is the Government/Industry at determining this
value?
− Should this information be shared with
industry/government during industry days, draft RFP, etc?
16
INITIAL EVALUATION RESULTS
• Added IEB documentation
− SSEB chair consolidates inputs from teams into
SSEB report for presentation to the SSA
− Is this necessary if not excluding any
offerors?
• SSAC involvement documentation
− Review result of SSEB to “see if additional areas
of evaluation by the SSEB are required”
− Review areas of disagreement within SSEB and
“try to assist the SSEB in coming to a consensus
opinion
17
SSDD
• SSA document rationale for award
− Include rationale for any business judgments and
tradeoffs made including benefits to the
Government not associated with additional costs
− Need not quantify the dollar value of the tradeoffs
− Clearly state benefits or advantages, qualitative
or quantitative
− Why is it in the Government’s best interests to
expend additional funds to obtain benefits or
advantages
18
BEST PRACTICES
• Conduct a risk assessment
• Define the discriminators and relative order of
importance
• Interface with industry early and often
• Select the correct methodology
• Build and inchstone schedule
• Get training early in the process
− Utilize a red team if possible
• Document, document, document
19