(2) The
RFP shall instruct offerors to submit data (including data from relevant
Federal, State, and local governments and private contracts) that can be used
to evaluate their past performance.
Typically, the RFP will require:
(i) A
list of contracts similar in size, content, and complexity to the instant
acquisition, showing each contract number, the type of contract, a brief
description of the work, and a point of contact from the organization placing
the contract. Normally, the requested
contracts are limited to those received in the last three years. However, in acquisitions that require longer
periods to demonstrate performance quality, such as hardware development, the
time period should be tailored accordingly.
(ii)
The identification and explanation of any cost overruns or underruns,
completion delays, performance problems, and terminations.
(3) The
contracting officer may start collecting past performance data before proposal
receipt. One method for early evaluation
of past performance is to request offerors to submit their past performance
information in advance of the proposal due date. The RFP could also include a past performance
questionnaire for offerors to send their previous customers with instructions
to return the completed questionnaire to the Government. Failure of the offeror to submit its past
performance information early or of the customers to submit the completed
questionnaires shall not be a cause for rejection of the proposal nor shall it
be reflected in the Government's evaluation of the offeror's past performance.
(4) The contracting officer shall evaluate the
offeror's past performance in occupational health, security, safety, and
mission success (e.g., mishap rates and problems in delivered hardware and
software that resulted in mishaps or failures) when these areas are germane to
the requirement.
1815.305 Proposal
evaluation.
(a) Each
proposal shall be evaluated to identify and document:
(i) Any deficiencies;
(ii) All strengths and weaknesses.
These findings will include a description of how each strength and
weakness will impact performance in terms of benefit or risk statements;
(iii) The numerical score and/or adjectival rating of each Mission
Suitability subfactor, if applicable;
(iv) Cost realism, if appropriate;
(v) The Past Performance evaluation factor; and
(vi) Any programmatic risk to mission success, e.g.,
technical, schedule, cost, safety, occupational health, security, export
control, or environmental. Risks may
result from the offeror's technical approach, manufacturing plan, selection of
materials, processes, equipment, or as a result of the cost, schedule, and
performance impacts associated with its approach. Risk evaluations must consider the
probability of the risk occurring, the impact and severity of the risk, the
timeframe when the risk should be addressed, and the alternatives available to
meet the requirements. Risk assessments
shall be captured as part of strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and numerical
or adjectival ratings. Identified risks and the potential for cost impact shall
be considered in the cost or price evaluation.
(a)(1) Cost or price evaluation.
(A) Cost or pricing data shall not be requested in
competitive acquisitions. See
1815.403-1(b)(1) and 1815.403-3(b).
(B) When contracting on a basis other than
firm-fixed-price, the contracting officer shall perform price and cost realism
analyses to assess the reasonableness and realism of the proposed costs. A cost realism analysis will determine if
the costs in an offeror's proposal meet all of the
following:
(a) Are realistic for the work
to be performed,
(b) Reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and
(c) Are consistent with the various elements of the offeror's
technical proposal.
(C) The
analysis shall,
to the extent appropriate for the acquisition, include:
(a)
The probable cost to the Government of each proposal, including any recommended
additions or reductions in materials, equipment, labor hours, direct rates, and
indirect rates. Any
adjustments in direct and indirect costs, other than minor computation errors,
must be fully explained and documented and, where applicable, traceable to the
technical evaluation. The
probable cost should reflect the Government’s best estimate based on cost resulting from
the
offeror's proposal after all known adjustments have been considered.
(b)
The differences between
the probable cost and offeror’s proposed costs regarding business
methods, operating procedures, and practices as they affect cost.
(a)(2) Past performance evaluation.
(A) The Past Performance evaluation assesses the
contractor's performance under previously awarded contracts. The past performance evaluation shall be in
accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and this
section. When applying the definitions
below to arrive at a confidence rating, the SEB’s evaluation shall clearly
document each Offeror’s relevant past performance (e.g. currency/recency, size,
content and complexity) to assess the Offeror’s overall confidence rating
assigned. The past performance
evaluation is an assessment of the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s
ability to perform the solicitation requirements. Past Performance
shall be evaluated for each offeror using the following levels of confidence
ratings:
Very High Level of Confidence
The Offeor’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and
is very highly pertinent to this acquisition; indicating exemplary performance
in a timely, efficient, and economical manner; very minor (if any) problems
with no adverse effect on overall performance.
Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a very high level of
confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. **
(One or more significant strengths exist.
No significant weaknesses exist. )
High Level of Confidence
The Offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to
this acquisition; demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully
responsive to contract requirements with contract requirements accomplished in
a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part with only minor
problems with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record,
there is a high level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform
the required effort. ** (One or more
significant strengths exist. Strengths
outbalance any weakness.)
Moderate Level of Confidence
The Offeror’s relevant past
performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective
performance; fully responsive to contract requirements; reportable problems,
but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record,
there is a moderate level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully
perform the required effort. ** (There
may be strengths or weaknesses, or both.)
Low Level of Confidence
The Offeror’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat
pertinent
to this acquisition, and it
meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards; adequate results;
reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall
performance. Based on the Offeror’s
performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the Offeror will
successfully perform the required effort.
Changes to the Offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to
achieve contract requirements. ** (One
or more weaknesses exist. Weaknesses outbalance strengths.)
Very Low Level of Confidence
The Offeror’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum
acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action required in one or
more areas; problems in one or more areas which,
adversely affect overall performance.
Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a very low level of
confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. ** (One or more deficiencies or significant
weaknesses exist.)
Neutral
In
the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant
past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available,
the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance
[see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (ii) and (iv)].
**
(At the Installations’ discretion strengths and weaknesses may be assigned.)
(B)
The evaluation may be limited to specific areas of past performance considered
most germane for the instant acquisition.
It may include any or all of the items listed in FAR 42.1501, and/or any
other aspects of past performance considered pertinent to the solicitation
requirements or challenges. Regardless
of the areas of past performance selected for evaluation, the same areas shall
be evaluated for all offerors in that acquisition.
(C) Questionnaires and interviews may be used to solicit
assessments of the offeror's performance, as either a prime or subcontractor,
from the offeror's previous customers.
(D) All pertinent information, including customer
assessments and any offeror rebuttals, will be made part of the source
selection records and addressed in the evaluation of past performance.
(a)(3) Technical Evaluation.
(A) Mission Suitability subfactors shall be evaluated
using the following adjectival ratings, definitions, and percentile ranges.
|
ADJECTIVAL
RATING
|
DEFINITIONS
|
PERCENTILE RANGE
|
|
Excellent
|
A comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional
merit with one or more significant strengths. No deficiency or significant
weakness exists.
|
91-100
|
|
Very Good
|
A proposal having no deficiency and which
demonstrates over-all competence. One
or more significant strengths have been found, and strengths outbalance any
weaknesses that exist.
|
71-90
|
|
Good
|
A proposal having no deficiency and which shows a
reasonably sound response. There may
be strengths or weaknesses, or both.
As a whole, weaknesses not off-set by strengths do not significantly
detract from the offeror’s response.
|
51-70
|
|
Fair
|
A proposal having no deficiency and which has one or
more weaknesses. Weaknesses outbalance any strengths.
|
31-50
|
|
Poor
|
A proposal that has one or more deficiencies or significant weaknesses
that demonstrate a lack of overall competence or would require a major
proposal revision to correct.
|
0-30
|
(B) When contracting on a cost reimbursement basis, a cost realism
analysis shall be performed consistent with FAR 15.404-1(d).
(a)(4) The
cost or price evaluation, specifically the cost realism analysis, often
requires a technical evaluation of the proposed costs elements. Contracting officers may provide technical
evaluators a copy of the cost volume or relevant information from it to use in
the analysis.
(b) The
contracting officer is authorized to make the determination to reject all
proposals received in response to a solicitation.
1815.305-70
Identification of unacceptable proposals.
(a) The
contracting officer shall not complete the initial evaluation of any proposal
when it is determined that the proposal is unacceptable because:
(1) It
does not represent a reasonable initial effort to address the essential
requirements of the RFP or clearly demonstrates that the offeror does not
understand the requirements;
(2) In
research and development acquisitions, a substantial design drawback is evident
in the proposal, and sufficient correction or improvement to consider the
proposal acceptable would require virtually an entirely new technical proposal;
or
(3) It
contains major deficiencies or omissions or out-of-line costs which discussions
with the offeror could not reasonably be expected to cure.
(b) The
contracting officer shall document the rationale for discontinuing the initial
evaluation of a proposal in accordance with this section.
1815.305-71
Evaluation of a single proposal.
(a)
If only one proposal is received in response to the solicitation, the
contracting officer shall determine if the solicitation was flawed or unduly
restrictive and determine if the single proposal
(i) Copies of individual worksheets and supporting
comments to the lowest level evaluated;
(ii)
An evaluation sheet summarized for the committee as a whole; and
(iii)
A statement for each proposal describing any strengths, deficiencies, or
significant weaknesses which significantly affected the evaluation and stating
any reservations or concerns, together with supporting rationale, which the
committee or any of its members want to bring to the attention of the SEB.
(3) The SEB process must be adequately
documented. Clear traceability must
exist at all levels of the SEB process.
All reports submitted by committees or panels will be retained as part
of the SEB records as outlined in paragraph (k).
(4) Each voting SEB member shall thoroughly review
each proposal and any committee reports and findings. The SEB shall rate or score the proposals for
each evaluation factor and subfactor according to its own collective
judgment. SEB minutes shall reflect this
evaluation process.
(h) SEB
presentation.
(1) The
SEB Chairperson shall brief the SSA on the results of the SEB deliberations to
permit an informed and objective selection of the best source(s) for the
particular acquisition.
(2)
The presentation shall focus on the significant strengths, deficiencies, and
significant weaknesses found in the proposals, the probable cost of each
proposal, and any significant issues and problems identified by the SEB. This presentation must explain any applicable
special standards of responsibility; evaluation factors and subfactors; the
significant strengths and significant weaknesses of the offerors which includes
a description of the benefits or risks associated with the significant
findings; the Government independent cost estimate, if applicable; the offerors'
proposed cost/price; the probable cost; the proposed fee arrangements; and the
final adjectival ratings and scores to the subfactor level. The presentation to the SSA shall include the
total mission suitability point score for each offeror’s proposal. An adjectival rating (e.g. excellent, very good,
etc.) shall be assigned for each mission suitability subfactor, but an
adjectival rating shall not be assigned for the total mission
suitability factor of each offeror’s proposal.
The SEB shall compute the total mission suitability point score by
adding all of the mission suitability subfactors points assessed, with the
maximum possible total mission suitability point score being 1000 points. The total mission suitability point score
does not represent a precise measure of the relative merit of any one offeror’s
proposal, but rather it is to summarize the total points each offeror’s
proposal is assessed out of the possible 1000 points.
(3)
Attendance at the presentation is restricted to people involved in the
selection process or who have a valid need to know. The designated individuals attending the SEB
presentation(s) shall:
(i)
Ensure that the solicitation and evaluation processes complied with all
applicable agency policies and that the presentation accurately conveys the
SEB’s activities and findings;
(ii)
Not change the established evaluation factors, subfactors, weights, or scoring
systems; or the substance of the SEB's findings. They may, however, advise the SEB to rectify
procedural omissions, irregularities or inconsistencies, substantiate its
findings, or revise the presentation.
(4) The
SEB recorder will coordinate the formal presentation including arranging the
time and place of the presentation, assuring proper attendance, and distributing
presentation material.
(5) For
Headquarters selections, the Headquarters Office of Procurement, Program
Operations Division will coordinate the presentation, including approval of
attendees. When the Administrator is the
SSA, a preliminary presentation should be made to the head of the contracting
activity and to the Official-in-Charge of the cognizant
Headquarters Program Office.
(i) Recommended
SEB presentation format.
(1) Identification of the Acquisition. Identifies the installation, the nature of
the services or hardware to be acquired, some quantitative measure including
the Government cost
estimate for the acquisition, and the planned contractual
arrangement. Avoids
detailed objectives of the acquisition.
(2) Background. Identifies any earlier phases of a phased
acquisition or, as in the case of continuing support services, identifies the
incumbent and any consolidations or proposed changes from the existing
structure.
(3) Evaluation Factors and Subfactors. Explains the evaluation
factors, subfactor, and any special standards of responsibility. Lists the relative order of
importance of the evaluation factors and the numerical weights of the Mission
Suitability subfactors. Presents
the adjectival scoring system used in the Mission Suitability and Past
Performance evaluations.
(4) Sources. Indicates the number of
offerors solicited and the number of offerors expressing interest (e.g.,
attendance at a preproposal conference).
Identifies the offerors submitting proposals, indicating
any small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, and women-owned
businesses.
(5) Summary of
Findings. Lists
the initial and final Mission Suitability ratings and scores, the offerors'
proposed costs/prices, and any assessment of the probable costs. Introduces any clear
discriminator, problem, or issue which could affect the selection. Addresses any competitive
range determination. List the adjectival rating (e.g.
excellent, very good, etc.) assigned for each mission suitability subfactor for
each offeror’s proposal. List the total
mission suitability point score for each offeror's proposal by adding all of
the mission suitability subfactors points assessed out of the possible 1000
points.
(6) Significant Strengths, Deficiencies, and
Significant Weaknesses of Offerors. Summarizes the SEB's
findings, using the following guidelines:
(i)
Present only the significant strengths, deficiencies, and significant
weaknesses of individual offerors accompanied with a description of the benefits
or risks associated with each discriminator.
(ii)
Directly relate the significant strengths, deficiencies, and significant
weaknesses to the evaluation factors, and subfactors.
(iii)
Indicate the results and impact, if any, of discussions and FPRs on ratings and
scores.
(7) Final Mission Suitability Ratings and Scores. Summarizes the evaluation
subfactors, the maximum points achievable, and the scores of the offerors in
the competitive range.
(8) Final Cost/Price Evaluation. Summarizes proposed costs/prices and any
probable costs associated with each offeror including proposed fee
arrangements. Presents
the data as accurately as possible, showing SEB adjustments to achieve
comparability. Identifies
(9) Past Performance. Provides a summary of the
assessed level of confidence associated with each offeror’s proposal.
(10) Special Interest. Includes only information
of special interest to the SSA that has not been discussed elsewhere, e.g.,
procedural errors or other matters that could affect the selection decision.
