Training systems division proposal evaluation plan



Download 167.56 Kb.
Date conversion23.11.2016
Size167.56 Kb.


NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER

TRAINING SYSTEMS DIVISION




PROPOSAL EVALUATION PLAN
FOR
{Insert Title}


ENCLOSURES

(1) Source Selection Timeline

(2) Quick Look Evaluation Worksheet

(3) Clarification Request/Deficiency Notice

(4) Proposal Evaluation Worksheet

(5) Lessons Learned Submittal Record

(6) Proposal Evaluation Standards

(7) Specification Evaluation Standards








REV 3.8, 11/4/1998

Attachment (1)




TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION. 1


2.0 SOURCE SELECTION ORGANIZATION ASSIGNMENTS. 1

2.1 Performance Risk Assessment Group Members. 6

2.2 SSEB Members. 6

2.2.1 Technical Team. 6

2.2.2 Cost Team. 6
3.0 SECURITY. 6

3.1 Evaluation Facilities. 6

3.2 Proposal Security. 7

3.3 Rules of Conduct. 7


4.0 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT. 7
5.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES. 7

5.1 Quick Look Evaluation. 7

5.2 Evaluation Work Packages. 8

5.3 Evaluation Criteria. 8

5.4 Initial Evaluation. 8

5.4.1 Evaluation Technique. 9

5.4.1.1 Adjectival Rating. 9

5.4.1.2 Risk. 10

5.4.1.3 Clarification Requests (CR's). 10

5.4.1.4 Deficiency Notices (DN's). 10

5.4.2 Factor Summary. 11

5.4.3 Area Summary. 11

5.5 Final Evaluation. 11

5.6 Performance Assessments. 12

5.6.1 Past Performance Assessments. 12

5.6.2 Current Capability Assessments. 12

5.6.2.1 Non-Software Capability Assessments. 12

5.6.2.2 Software Capability Assessments. 13

5.7 Cost/Affordability Volume. 13
6.0 EVALUATION PRODUCTS. 14

6.1 Quick Look Determination. 14

6.2 SSEB Proposal Evaluation Report. 14

6.3 Proposal Analysis Report (PAR). 14

6.4 Official File. 14

6.5 Lessons Learned Report. 14




1.0 INTRODUCTION. This Proposal Evaluation (PEP) is issued in support of the Source Selection Plan (SSP). This plan is a guide for the implementation of the evaluation policy set forth in the SSP and will aid in conducting a fair, efficient, and properly documented selection for award. It contains details of administration, proposal evaluation procedures, and responsibilities within the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) for evaluating proposals for the [Insert name of system]. This PEP points out responsibilities of the source selection organization both individually and as team members. Membership in source selection boards, committees, councils, or teams shall be considered a primary duty and shall take precedence over other duties, travel, and leave.
2.0 SOURCE SELECTION ORGANIZATION ASSIGNMENTS. The following tables contain the source selection organization assignments for this proposal evaluation:



Source Selection Authority




Source Selection Advisory Council

Chairperson:

SSAC Members:



Performance Risk Assessment Group

Chairperson:

PRAG Members:



Source Selection Evaluation Board

Chairperson:

TT Leader:

CT Leader:

[NOTE: The following two tables identify representative evaluation criteria for both the model contract acquisition approach (contractor writes specification) and the conventional acquisition approach (Government writes specification). As applicable, criteria from either table can be selected and combined to best fit the requirements of a particular program. Complete the assignments for the applicable criteria and delete the others.]




Model Contract Approach - Government provides SOO and TSRD and offeror’s respond with a SOW and specification in their proposals. Note if solicitation is a services contract, no specification submitted.

VOLUME 1 - PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT - Area Leader, { }

Chapter 1 - Past Performance - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }



{ }

{ }

{ }

Chapter 2 - Current Performance - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }

{ }

{ }

{ }


VOLUME 2 - REQUIREMENTS EVOLUTION - Area Leader, { }

Chapter 1 - System Concept - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }



{ }

{ }

{ }

Chapter 2 - System Requirements Mapping - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }

{ }

{ }

{ }

Chapter 3 - System Specification - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }

{ }

{ }

{ }


VOLUME 3 - INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT - Area Leader, { }

Chapter 1 - Organizational Issues - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }



{ }

{ }

{ }

Chapter 2 - Requirements Management - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }

{ }

{ }

{ }

Chapter 3 - Information Issues - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }

{ }

{ }

{ }


VOLUME 4 - SUPPORTABILITY - Area Leader, { }

Chapter 1 - Integration Of Supportability W/Design - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }



{ }

{ }

{ }

Chapter 2 - Operations And Maintenance - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }

{ }

{ }

{ }

Chapter 3 - Configuration Management - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }

{ }

{ }

{ }

Chapter 4 - Inventory Management - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }

{ }

{ }

{ }


VOLUME 5 - AFFORDABILITY - Area Leader, { }

Chapter 1 - Acquisition And Initial Support Cost - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }



{ }

{ }

{ }

Chapter 2 - Contractor Logistic Support - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }

{ }

{ }

{ }

Chapter 3 - Operations And Support - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }

{ }

{ }

{ }


VOLUME 6 - ADMINISTRATIVE - Area Leader, { }

Chapter 1 - Mandatory Information - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }



{ }

{ }

{ }

Chapter 2 - Optional Information - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }

{ }

{ }

{ }





Traditional Approach - Government provides Specification and SOW, offeror’s provide proposals IAW the below critia

VOLUME 1 - TECHNICAL APPROACH - Area Leader, { }

Chapter 1 - Synopsis And Design Analysis - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }



{ }

{ }

{ }

Chapter 2 - System Design - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }

{ }

{ }

{ }

Chapter 3 - Computer System Design - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }

{ }

{ }

{ }

Chapter 4 - Product Assurance - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }

{ }

{ }

{ }

Chapter 5 - Test And Evaluation - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }

{ }

Chapter 6 - Facilities - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }

{ }


VOLUME 2 - LOGISTICS APPROACH - Area Leader, { }

Chapter 1 - ILS Program Overview - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }



{ }

Chapter 2 - Maintenance Planning - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }

{ }

Chapter 3 - Data Management - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }

{ }

Chapter 4 - Training Program - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }

{ }

Chapter 5 - Operation And Maintenance Program - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }

{ }

Chapter 6 - Material Support - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }

{ }

Chapter 7 - Contractor Logistic Support - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }

{ }


VOLUME 3 - MANAGEMENT - Area Leader, { }

Chapter 1 - Project Management - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }



{ }

{ }

{ }

Chapter 2 - Configuration Management - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }

{ }

{ }

{ }

Chapter 3 - Data Management - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }

{ }

{ }

{ }

Chapter 4 - Project Organization And Staffing - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }

{ }

{ }

{ }

Chapter 5 - Effectiveness Predictions - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }

{ }

{ }

{ }

Chapter 6 - Performance Assessment - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }

{ }

{ }

{ }


VOLUME 4 - COST - Area Leader, { }

Chapter 1 - Acquisition And Initial Support Cost - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }



{ }

{ }

{ }

Chapter 2 - Contractor Logistic Support - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }

{ }

{ }

{ }

Chapter 3 - Operations And Support - Factor Leader, { }

Members - { }

{ }

{ }

{ }


2.1 Performance Risk Assessment Group Members.Error! Bookmark not defined. If performance is a selection criteria, the SSAC will establish a Performance Risk Assessment Group (PRAG) as an independent group. The members of the PRAG will focus on the capabilities of the offerors based upon their past performance and current capabilities. The PRAG will report directly to the SSA.


2.2 SSEB Members. The SSEB will be composed of two teams: Technical team (TT) and Cost (or price) team (CT). Individual evaluations form an important part of the entire evaluation process, and each person's evaluation is the foundation for the total assessment of the individual offerors. Evaluations will be summarized by the TT and CT leaders for final presentation to the SSEB chairperson, the Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC), and the Source Selection Authority (SSA). Enclosure (1) provides the source selection timeline, and SSEB members should plan their work so that they will not compromise quality to meet the schedule. When individual evaluations are complete and approved by the SSEB Chairperson, members may be directed to assist in the summarization or presentation of results. Under no circumstances are they excused from the team until authorized by the SSEB Chairperson. They may be recalled for assessment of offeror responses to the clarification requests (CR) and deficiency notices (DN) issued by the PCO, and for participation and assistance during discussions and negotiations which may take place during the source selection process. At all times they will be responsive to the requirements of the source selection organization and use the forms, formats, and procedures described in the PEP.
2.2.1 Technical Team. The TT Leader will assist the SSEB chairperson and will be responsible for the overall evaluation of the Requirements Evolution, Integrated Management, and Supportability volumes of the proposal. The area leaders will assist the TT leader. They are responsible for completing an evaluation of each factor in their assigned volumes and for submitting an evaluation summary of all the factors in their assigned volumes. The area leader will be assisted by factor leaders or key evaluators, who will provide a summary evaluation of each assigned factor. Team members will review the technical volumes, assist factor and area leaders in the summarization and presentation of evaluation results, and assist in other duties as required.
2.2.2 Cost Team. In the case of the Affordability Volume the CT leader will also serve as the area leader. The CT Leader will assist the SSEB chairperson and will be responsible for completing an evaluation of each factor in the Affordability Volume and for submitting an evaluation summary of all factors. The area leader will be assisted by factor leaders or key evaluators, who will provide a summary evaluation of each assigned factor. Team members will review the Affordability Volumes, assist the area leader and factor leaders in the summarization and presentation of evaluation results, and assist in other duties as required.
3.0 SECURITY. The disclosure of the proceedings, evaluation results, or proposal information can result in special appeals or protests that can delay the program and embarrass the Government, not only in the current selection, but also in future dealings with industry. The unauthorized disclosure of evaluation or proposal information will be vigorously investigated, and violations will be processed in accordance with applicable Government regulations.
3.1 Evaluation Facilities. As much compartmentalization as possible should be provided so that areas are conducive to undisturbed deliberation. Members of the TT will perform their duties in the same general area. The CT and the PRAG will be assigned to separate areas. All discussions pertaining to the selection will take place in the evaluation facilities, exclusive of briefings authorized by senior elements of the source selection organization. Each participant will have a file for their notes and working papers.
3.2 Proposal Security. Because the proposals are source selection sensitive, they will be secured, when unattended, by the responsible team member. Day to day proposal security will be the responsibility of the all team members. RFP's, source selection documentation (e.g. PEP), and proposals which are determined to be classified will also be safeguarded IAW service specific regulations and instructions.
3.3 Rules of Conduct. Source selection personnel, other than the PCO, will not discuss contractual matters such as RFP status, proposals (to include number or identity of offerors), discussions, and negotiations and award of contracts with prospective offerors. All information contained in proposals, or pertaining to the selection process, is sensitive. During the period between the receipt of proposals and notification by the PCO that an award has been made, all source selection organization personnel will ensure that:
a. Details of the acquisition activities are not made known, wholly or in part, to anyone other than authorized source selection personnel.
b. Any attempt by an offeror to alter a technical proposal already submitted will be referred to the PCO.
c. No information is provided to an individual offeror which many improve their position to the disadvantage of a competitor.
d. There will be no discussion of any aspect of the selection activity outside the designated source selection area.
e. Material will not be removed from the source selection area except with the permission of the respective team leader.
f. All waste paper containing proposal or evaluation notes or data will be disposed of in a separate waste file in each area. This material will be disposed of by the respective team leaders at the conclusion of the source selection. Unclassified documents, records, and reports associated with the selection process will be marked "FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY" AND "SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE".
g. No member of the source selection organization may reproduce any part of an offeror's proposal without permission of the PCO.
4.0 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT. Administrative support for this source selection will be provided through team leaders. It will consist of supporting all formal meetings of the SSEB, briefings to the source selection organization, typing support, providing forms and supplies, files maintenance and other duties as required by the source selection organization.
5.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES.
5.1 Quick Look Evaluation. Proposals are given a "quick look" evaluation by the PCO upon receipt. This evaluation may do no more than determine, on the basis of a brief checklist (Enclosure (2)), that all offerors have submitted proposals consistent with RFP instructions (required technical and cost volumes, page limitations, etc.) and are initially determined to be in the competitive range for the purpose of further indepth evaluations. Most proposals will pass this "quick look". Determination at this point that a proposal was not in the competitive range would indicate a serious failure on the part of the offeror to comply with the basic proposal requirements of the RFP. Proposals are not rated or scored during the "quick look" phase of the evaluation. However, the outcome of this "quick look" may be presented to the SSA expeditiously for an initial competitive determination. The SSA will approve competitive range decisions, if the determination includes elimination of any offeror(s).
5.2 Evaluation Work Packages. An evaluation work package will be assembled for each SSEB evaluator. The purpose of these packages is to assist in the orderly conduct of the evaluation. They will help each evaluator to know where to begin and where to continue. The packages will include:
a. Applicable evaluation standards.
b. A list of references to the RFP which require verification in support of the contract verification process.
c. Copy of Section L of the RFP.
d. A copy of the SSP and attachments.
e. Blank evaluation forms.
5.3 Evaluation Criteria. Evaluation criteria consist of two types; Specific criteria and Assessment criteria. The Specific criteria are those Areas, Factors, and Subfactors which have been identified to offerors in sections L and M of the RFP. Assessment criteria relate to the offerors proposal and abilities. Assessment criteria include: Adequacy of approach, Feasibility of approach, and understanding/compliance with requirements. These are defined as follows:
a. Adequacy of approach - Each proposal will be evaluated from the standpoint of adherence to sound practices and the offeror's approach to accomplish the tasks set forth in the solicitation.
b. Feasibility of approach - The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror's approach provides the government with a high level of confidence to ensure successful performance. The extent to which the offeror has developed measurements to track the process, eliminate errors, remove slack, reduce variation, and plan for continuous improvement.
c. Understanding/compliance with requirements - Each proposal will be evaluated to ensure that the offeror's approach will satisfy and meet all requirements of this solicitation. Each proposal will be evaluated to ensure that any trade-offs and investigations have addressed all applicable areas, factors, and subfactors.
5.4 Initial Evaluation. The initial rating of each proposal will be based upon an indepth evaluation and will be documented on evaluation worksheets forms. Proposals will be evaluated solely against the criteria specified in the source selection standards, see Enclosures (6) and (7). TT members will not include as a part of their evaluations, a comparison of one proposal with another. The evaluators must remember that they need not accept, without question, data presented in a proposal. They are to use expert knowledge and experience to determine the adequacy, feasibility, and understanding/compliance of the offerors' statements. Except for the PRAG, evaluators will not consider past performance of any offeror in their evaluation of a contractor's proposal. However, if an evaluator has past performance knowledge of an offeror (or proposed subcontractor) which is relevant to the evaluation, that information should be given to the SSEB chairperson who will then pass it on to the PRAG.
5.4.1 Evaluation Technique. The SSEB will evaluate proposals using specific criteria, assessment criteria, and standards. The specific technique is to apply (in matrix fashion) the assessment criteria to the specific criteria based on a standard which identifies an Acceptable level of performance. An individual evaluator would then determine whether the solution exceeds the standard (exceptional) meets the standard (acceptable) or is something less (marginal or unacceptable). This is illustrated in the following diagram:





SPECIFIC CRITERIA n

ASSESSMENT

CRITERIA


  • ADEQUACY

  • FEASIBILITY

  • UNDERSTANDING




OFFERORS DESIGN APPROACH










EXCEPTIONAL

ACCEPTABLE

MARGINAL

UNACCEPTABLE







STANDARD n







Evaluators will identify clarifications, deficiencies, strengths, weaknesses, and risks of each proposal. Four distinct products are required from the evaluator to be included in the evaluation report. These are:


a. Adjectival Rating (with supporting narrative)
b. Risk assessment (with supporting narrative)
c. Clarification Requests (CR's)
d. Deficiency Notices (DN's)
5.4.1.1 Adjectival Rating. Each completed evaluation worksheet (Enclosure (4)) shall include an adjectival rating as defined here. An evaluation worksheet will typically be completed for each factor, but may be completed at the subfactor level depending on the complexity of the item being evaluated. Detailed narrative shall be included which identifies the strengths and weaknesses, and is supportive of the adjectival rating given. Weaknesses may be considered in a range from minor to significant. Significant weaknesses must be brought to the attention of the SSAC/SSA in associated briefings. However, what might be identified as a minor weakness in one factor may, when added or taken as a whole with other associated factors, become a significant weakness. These rating techniques must be applied consistently to enable the SSA to make appropriate and informed decisions.

Adjectival Rating

Definition

Outstanding

Proposal significantly exceeds requirements in a way that benefits the government or meets requirements and contains at least one exceptional enhancing feature which benefits the government. Any weakness is minor.

Highly Satisfactory

Proposal exceeds requirements in a way that benefits the government or meets requirements and contains enhancing features which benefit the government. Any weakness is minor.

Satisfactory

Proposal meets requirements. Any weaknesses are acceptable to the Government.

Marginal

Proposal contains weaknesses or minor deficiencies which could have some impact is accepted.

Unsatisfactory

Proposal does not comply substantially with requirements.

An unacceptable rating at any level of indentation (area, factor, subfactor) requires an unacceptable rating at the highest rated level. For example, in assigning the final rating for a given area which contains four factors to be evaluated, if any of the factors are scored unacceptable, the entire area is unacceptable. Source selection rating techniques do not allow for averaging or balancing a unacceptable factor with exceptional or acceptable factors to produce an acceptable or marginal rating. To apply this balancing technique could place the Government in the position of selecting an offer that did not meet minimum requirements.


5.4.1.2 Risk. Risk assessment shall be accomplished in accordance with the risk definitions as follows (Risk is assessed on Enclosure (4)):


Adjectival Rating

Definition

High

Likely to cause significant serious disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation of performance even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring

Medium

Can potentially cause some disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties.

Low

Has little or no potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties.

Considerable discussions in the past have resulted in the differentiation of "Weaknesses" and "Risks" as used in formalized source selection proceedings. A factor, or area can be judged by an evaluator as having a weakness(es) when the source selection standards are not met. A weakness can be anything interpreted as a part of the offeror's proposal that is deficient to the standard. Risk may be considered as the probability that if the specific course of action the offeror has proposed is followed, the desired Government requirement or objective will not be attained or met within the specified constraints of cost, schedule, and performance. In general, weaknesses within a factor, or area create a corresponding risk to achievement of program requirements. There are, however, sources of risk other than weaknesses. For example the development approach (including schedule time, test scope, etc.) proposed by the offeror may be unlikely to succeed in the opinion of the evaluator even though no specific standard was written on the subject. In such a case it is possible to have a risk without a corresponding specific weakness.


5.4.1.3 Clarification Requests (CR's). CR's shall be used by the evaluators to document minor irregularities, information gaps, or apparent clerical mistakes in a proposal. Clarifications may be achieved by explanation or substantiation either in response to Government inquiry or as initiated by an offeror. Clarifications, unlike discussions, do not give an offeror an opportunity to revise or modify its proposal, except to the extent that correction of apparent clerical mistakes results in a revision. See Enclosure (3)
5.4.1.4 Deficiency Notices (DN's). When an offeror's proposal fails to meet the requirements as established in the RFP, a DN will be prepared to be used by the PCO in communicating the deficiency to the offeror should that course of action be selected. DN's shall be the documentation that provide for formal discussion with the offerors (see Enclosure (3)). Examples of situations which require a DN are:
a. Proposed approach which poses an unacceptable risk.
b. Omission of data which makes it impossible to assess compliance with the standard.
c. An approach taken in the design of the system which yields undesired performance.
5.4.2 Factor Summary. A summary of all factors in each volume is written by the area leader and consists of a summary of individual evaluations of factors, and subfactors within that area. The factor summary will include a description of what is proposed, proposal strengths, weaknesses, and risks. An overall factor summary will be provided with an adjectival rating. Additionally, the area leaders will provide:
a. A summary of the RFP requirements.
b. A summary of the proposal evaluation highlighting strengths, weaknesses, and risks.
c. Evaluation worksheets completed by the team members.
The completed factor summaries will be submitted to the TT leader, and they will be reviewed with each area leader.
5.4.3 Area Summary. The TT leader will complete a summary of each proposal area. To complete an area summary, the TT leader will complete the following:
a. A summary of the RFP requirements.
b. A summary of the proposal evaluation highlighting strengths, weaknesses, and risks.
c. Factor summaries completed by the area leaders.
The TT leader will submit the summaries to the SSEB chairperson for review. The TT leader will file the completed evaluations for a permanent record. The TT leader will prepare the Proposal Evaluation Report (PER) summarizing the resultant ranking of each technical proposal. This summary, along with the cost/price evaluation reports, shall be forwarded to the SSAC for the comparative analysis.
5.5 Final Evaluation. This phase will evaluate offerors' proposals as supplemented by offerors' responses to CR's and DN's. The following specific procedures apply to the supplemented evaluation.
a. Team members will create completely new factor, subfactor evaluations upon receipt of responses to all relevant CR's and DN's. Evaluators will get back the original Evaluation Worksheets plus new blank forms. The Evaluation Worksheet will be revised, but the revised rating letter symbol will be marked next to the original rating symbol letter with the letter "F" (final) next to them. Based upon the responses to CR's and DN's, the evaluators will rewrite proposal strengths, weaknesses, and risks in light of the offeror's understanding of requirements, soundness of approach, compliance with requirements, deficiencies, and correction potential. The final evaluation should not change from the initial evaluation, unless a CR or DN response(s) changes an evaluation worksheet symbol. To complete an factor evaluation, the evaluator must assemble the final evaluation package and submit it to the area leader.
b. Area leaders will create a completely new factor summary package. The package will include the same forms as the initial factor summary package. The area leaders' summaries will be based on the initial evaluation package. To complete the area leaders' evaluation, the area leader must assemble the final (revised) package and submit it to the TT leader for review.
c. The TT leader will create a completely new area summary package. The final area summary will be based on the final factor summary packages submitted by the area leaders. The TT leaders will submit the package to the SSEB for review. The TT leader file the completed package for a permanent record.
After BAFO's are received, the TT will document any changes in the offerors' technical proposals and any resulting changes to the previous technical ratings. The CT will likewise explain the changes to cost proposals and prepare a report on the cost or price evaluation of each proposal.
5.6 Performance Assessments. Performance will be evaluated by the PRAG against two factors, Past Performance and Current Capability.
5.6.1 Past Performance Assessments. Past performance will be rated with the following adjectives:


Adjectival Rating

Definition

High

Significant doubt exists, based on the offeror's performance and systemic improvement record, that the offeror can perform the effort requested in the solicitation.

Medium

Some doubt exists, based on the offeror's performance and systemic improvement record, that the offeror can perform the effort requested in the solicitation..

Low

Little doubt exists, based on the offeror's performance and systemic improvement record, that the offeror can perform the effort requested in the solicitation..

5.6.2 Current Capability Assessments. Assessments will be done for the offeror's capability to: develop hardware; develop software; integrate hardware and software; manufacture or produce the system; and finance the development efforts. Software capability assessments will be handled differently from the other assessments. Both risk and reasonableness will be assessed by the PRAG, and reasonableness evaluations may include, as necessary, on-site visits to confirm assessments.


5.6.2.1 Non-Software Capability Assessments. With the exception of software capability, other capability assessments will be rated with the following adjectives:


Adjectival Rating

Definition

Exceptional

The offeror's current capabilities clearly exceed the level required for successful performance

Satisfactory

The indications of possible capability problems with the offeror are such that they do not raise concerns regarding performance under the proposal being evaluated. Such possible capability problems include minor issues, previous conditions that have been corrected, or problems that are irrelevant with regard to the current procurement.

Marginal

Current analyses indicate capability problems that raise concerns regarding the offeror's potential to successfully perform the procurement under consideration.

Unsatisfactory

The offeror's current capabilities indicate major deficiencies, either in the magnitude of a critical area, or in aggregating several smaller areas, that lead to the conclusion that the offeror cannot be relied upon to perform the procurement under consideration.

5.6.2.2 Software Capability Assessments. Software capability will assess the offeror's capabilities against a standard capability model, the Capability Maturity Model for Software, published by the Software Engineering Institute of Carnegie Mellon University. The offerors will provide a self-assessment utilizing the model which will be evaluated for reasonableness by the PRAG. The reasonableness evaluation may include, as necessary, an on-site assessment to validate the self-assessment. Software capability will be rated with the following adjectives:




Adjectival Rating

Definition

Exceptional

The offeror is assessed at Level 3 or higher, and there is a reasonable expectation that the assessment is valid.

Satisfactory

The offeror is assessed at Level 2, or at Level 1 but should attain Level 2 within 12 months, and there is a reasonable expectation that the assessment is valid.

Marginal

The offeror is assessed at Level 1, and there are significant questions as to whether the offeror can achieve a Level 2 within 12 months, and there is a reasonable expectation that the assessment is valid

Unsatisfactory

The offeror is assessed at less than Level 1, or has achieved Level 1 but has little chance of achieving Level 2 within 12 months, and there is a reasonable expectation that the assessment is valid.

5.7 Cost/Affordability Volume. Each cost/price volume of the proposal will be reviewed to ensure each offeror has executed each priced portion of the RFP. Only personnel allowed access to the cost information will be the CT. This requirement is necessary to ensure the security of cost information and to prevent the cost evaluation from influencing the technical evaluation. Detailed cost or pricing data will not be required to be submitted with the proposal, however, cost or pricing data will be requested if it is later determined that all or part of the cost or pricing data is required. Such a determination would be required if competition is not achieved. In the event that detailed cost or pricing data is required, the data (hours and material cost only) may be evaluated after the initial PER is completed by the SSEB as determined by the PCO. The responsibilities of the CT include:


a. Evaluation of the offerors' initial proposals and BAFO's against evaluation criteria for reasonableness, realism, and completeness.
b. Evaluation of cost resulting from correction of deficiencies by each offeror and adjustment of the initial evaluation and most probable life cycle cost (MPLCC).
c. Compilation of the MPLCC by the Government for each offeror's proposal. This will be provided by fiscal year and total. MPLCC should include cost to correct deficiencies.
d. Assist in assessing effectiveness of offerors budgeting and cost accounting system.
e. Preparation preliminary and final briefing material as required by SSEB chairman, SSAC, and SSA.
6.0 EVALUATION PRODUCTS. The source selection organization will generate the following reports and documents during the source selection process:
6.1 Quick Look Determination. This will provide a quick overview of the proposal received and allow the SSA to make an initial competitive range determination.
6.2 SSEB Proposal Evaluation Report. The PER will provide the SSA with a detailed explanation of the evaluation and contract negotiation results. It will contain area and factor assessments of each proposal, both as received and as supplemented, with corresponding ratings, as appropriate. There will be a summary of discussions and negotiations and evaluations of offerors' best and final offers.
6.3 Proposal Analysis Report (PAR). The final PER will be used for preparation of the PAR. The TT and CT shall prepare a PER summarizing strengths, weaknesses, and risk of each proposal and its resultant rating. This summary will be sent to the SSAC for development of the PAR.
6.4 Official File. An official file of all source selection documentation will be compiled by the PCO.
6.5 Lessons Learned Report. This document will contain recommendations by the source selection organization on ways to improve the source selection process. Team members will participate in this process by submitting ideas and suggestions to area leaders as they occur. The Lessons Learned Submittal Record, Enclosure (5), is provided as a checklist for possible inputs. When the selection process is complete, the SSA (SSAC) should forward the Lessons Learned Report to the PCO.

SSEB SOURCE SELECTION TIMELINE


This timeline represents the significant milestone dates which impact the SSEB evaluators. Lengths for some of these events are estimates based on a projected number of offerors providing proposals in response to this solicitation. For the SSEB members not involved in the preparation of the proposal evaluation reports, note that the evaluation is not continuous. There will be a break for you during events 4 and 5. At a minimum your dedicated resources are required for events 2, 3 and 6. If the PCO decides to send out an additional round of DNs and CRs, an intermediate evaluation will occur and this timeline will be adjusted to reflect this.




EVENT

TIMELINE

1. PROPOSAL RECEIVED
2. PROPOSAL EVALUATION

KICK-OFF MEETING


3. INITIAL EVALUATION
4. PRELIMINARY PER
5. OFFERORS RESPOND TO

DNs AND CRs


5. FINAL EVALUATION
6. FINAL PER
7. SSEB BRIEF TO SSAC
8. CONTRACT AWARD
9. DEBRIEFINGS TO

OFFERORS



---------



--

------









QUICK LOOK EVALUATION

RFP { }-{ }-R-{ }


OFFEROR:

OVERALL CONTENT:





Included

Yes/No


# of

copies


Required #

of chapters



Required

Appendices



Required

Indexes


Page

Count


Vol 1.



















Vol 2.



















Vol 3.



















Vol 4.



















Vol 5.



















Vol 6.



















FORMAT:
8.5x11" white paper yes___ no___ Six lines per inch maximum yes___ no___

12 CPI minimum font size yes___ no___ One inch margins minimum yes___ no___

Three ring binders yes___ no___ Fold out pages 11x17" maximum yes___ no___


COMMENTS:


EVALUATOR:
NAME: DATE:




CLARIFICATION REQUEST/DEFICIENCY NOTICE NUMBER____

RFP { }-{ }-R-{ }

OFFEROR:


CLARIFICATION REQUEST [ ]

DEFICIENCY NOTICE [ ]

REFERENCES:

OFFERORS PROPOSAL

RFP

VOLUME:




CHAPTER:




PARAGRAPH:




PAGE NUMBER:




CLARIFICATION OR DEFICIENCY: (refer to clarification and deficiency definitions)


EVALUATOR:
NAME: DATE:




PROPOSAL EVALUATION WORKSHEET NUMBER____

RFP { }-{ }-R-{ }

OFFEROR:


REFERENCES:

OFFERORS PROPOSAL

RFP

VOLUME:

AREA:

CHAPTER:

FACTOR

PARAGRAPH:

SUBFACTOR:

PAGE NUMBER:



RATING: (Refer to adjectival rating definitions)

OUTSTANDING [ ] HIGHLY SATISFACTORY [ ] SATISFACTORY [ ] MARGINAL [ ] UNSATISFACTORY [ ]



RISK: (Refer to risk definitions)

LOW [ ] MEDIUM [ ] HIGH [ ]



Related Deficiency Notice:

Yes [ ] No [ ]



EVALUATION: (Using the assessment criteria state the evaluation in terms of weaknesses and strong points. The evaluation must include rationale for the risk.)


EVALUATOR:
NAME: DATE:







LESSONS LEARNED SUBMITTAL RECORD

To:

From:


Submitter's Name:

Phone:


Date:

Topic of Potential Lesson Learned:


References:


Description of Situation and Background Information:


Describe course of action, if any, that corrected situation.


State precisely what you believe the lesson learned to be.






The database is protected by copyright ©dentisty.org 2016
send message

    Main page