|
The
Governments written Proposal Evaluation Guide for prospective contractors is an assessment of the
proposal and the contractors ability to perform the prospective contract
successfully.
●
Successful proposal evaluation depends on four key elements
●
Proposal
evaluations consist of three phases:
●
Always ask yourself:
The evaluation criteria
within contract should include a description of
evaluating past performance, including evaluating contractors with no
relevant performance history, and shall provide contractors an
opportunity to identify past or current contracts for efforts
similar to the Government requirement.
The solicitation shall
also authorize contractors to provide information on problems
encountered on the identified contracts and the contractors corrective
actions.
The Government shall
consider this information, as well as information obtained from any
other sources, when evaluating the contractors past performance.
In the case of a contractor without a record of relevant past performance or for whom
information on past performance is not available, the
contractor may
not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.
(See
FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)).
To have an effective evaluation, the evaluation criteria must
be identified and defined in the request for proposal / quote
(RFP - RFQ).
All source selections should ensure that the Government selects the
contractor proposing the best value to the Government.
BEST VALUE can be
determined by using one of two distinct processes:
(1) “tradeoff”
Tradeoff means, “in the
best interest of the Government to consider award to other than
lowest priced contractor or other than the highest technically rated
offeror.”
In essence this means that the Government will evaluate
both technical and price/cost factors and will award to the
contractor
whose proposal offers the best value to the government, considering
trade-offs between price/cost and technical factors.
(2) “lowest price,
technically acceptable” (LPTA).
Lowest
Price,
Technically
Acceptable means that the award will be made to
the contractor whose price is lowest among all proposals that were
deemed to be technically acceptable:
Determining best value
using the LPTA method may be appropriate where the requirement is
not complex and the technical and performance risks are minimal,
such as acquisitions where service, supply, or equipment
requirements are well defined.
An LPTA approach is not
appropriate for cost type contracts.
The evaluation factors and
significant sub-factors that establish the requirements of acceptability
shall be set forth in the solicitation. The solicitation shall specify
that award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of
proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost
factors
(See FAR 15.101-2(b)(1)).
This method does not allow for trade-offs between price/cost and
technical factors.
If factors such as
labor mix and level of effort are to be important evaluation
factors, the Contract must require that these areas be
quantified and addressed in detail in the technical proposal.
top
Successful proposal evaluation depends on four key elements:
-
Appropriate,
well-defined evaluation criteria.
-
Evaluation rating standards that are understood and applied
consistently among evaluators and among all proposals being
evaluated.
-
A careful review of the language in each
proposal to ascertain how the offeror will meet the requirements
of the Contract and to
identify assumptions (whether or not labeled as such), and
statements that may indicate increased cost/price and/or risk to the
Government. It is very important to read all the words in each
proposal and clearly document any shortfalls or areas of risk.
-
Fully documented evaluation findings.
All
proposal evaluations
generally consist of three phases:
top
Phase One – Planning
Phase Two – Forming The Evaluation Team
Phase Three – Conducting The Evaluation
Phase One –
Planning the Proposal Evaluation
Step 1.
Complete the
Evaluation Criteria for Award.
This is an integral part of the
acquisition package and must accompany each PRW.
The evaluation criteria to be used MUST be defined in the
contract.
Tailor and
expand Appendix C:
Evaluation Criteria of the Task Order
Template (D/SIDDOMS 3, TEAMS, T/AARMS or GSA) to be specific to
your requirement. These task order templates are available at:
http://www.tricare.mil/tps/Acquisition_Tools_Guides.cfm.
Step 2.
Submit Evaluation
Criteria to Acquisition Manager.
Submit the completed Task Order
procurement package to include Appendix C: Evaluation Criteria
to your Acquisition Manager along with the Acquisition Package.
Whenever the Requiring Activity plans to use Contractors in any
capacity during the evaluation, the acquisition package must
specify that they will be used and must identify the specific
company name and the specific role that the Contractor will
perform.
Failure to include this information in the acquisition
package will preclude the Contractor from any exposure to the
proposal or evaluation deliberations.
top
Phase Two - Forming
the Proposal
Evaluation Team
Step 1.
Determine the Team Approach.
Single Panel:
One team
handles both non-cost/price and cost/price evaluations. In
this case the panel will not be given access to cost/price
information until all evaluators have completed and
documented the non-cost/price evaluation.
Two Panels:
One team for
non-cost/price evaluations and another separate team for
cost/price evaluations. Under this approach, the
non-cost/price panel will not have access to cost/price data
throughout the evaluation.
Both evaluations may be conducted
concurrently of each other.
Step 2.
Nominate Panel Members and Identify Supporting Contractor Personnel.
The
responsible TPS AM/CM sends an Evaluation Panel Nomination
Request to the requiring activity evaluation POC. This form
contains links to key guidance and forms, such as
Confidentiality Agreements and standing Contracting Officer’s
Guidance.
All Government members of the evaluation panel must sign and
submit a Confidentiality Agreement for Government Employees.
Government Participant confidentiality Agreement
Contractor Participation
Contractors are not authorized to be voting members of the
evaluation panel; however, contractors may be used to support
the panel, so long as the name of the supporting contractor was
disclosed in the instructions to Contractors section of the
solicitation.
If this information was not included in the
solicitation, contractors may not be used to support the
evaluation panel. Any contractor personnel that are used to
support the evaluation panel must sign and submit a
Confidentiality Agreement for Contractors.
Be advised that any
use of Contractor support to an evaluation panel must comply
with the TMA Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) policy in Section 2.4 of the TMA Non-Purchased Care Desk Top Reference.
top
Step 3.
Brief Panel Members on Their Responsibilities.
Panel members and
any supporting contractor personnel must clearly understand
their roles and responsibilities regarding the proposal
evaluation.
Government evaluation panel members and supporting
contractor personnel must read and sign the appropriate
Confidentiality Statement.
Also, if the panel will be performing
a Fair Opportunity Tradeoff evaluation under one of the TMA
contract vehicles (T/AARMS, TEAMS or D/SIDDOMS3), all Government
panel members are to read the standing Contracting Officer’s
Guidance regarding Tradeoff evaluations and once they have read
it, they are to sign the attached acknowledgement statement.
The Point Of Contact for the evaluation panel should collect and return the
signed Confidentiality Statements and acknowledgement statements
to their supporting TPS AM/CM.
Step 4.
Receive Evaluation Transmittal Forms.
Upon receipt
of the names of the nominated panel members and all signed
Confidentiality Agreements and acknowledgement statements, TPS
completes an Evaluation Transmittal Form for either an LPTA,
Tradeoff, or
Sole Source/Modification evaluation.
This
transmittal form is then sent to the requiring activity
evaluation POC via e-mail along with the proposals received and
other information to support the evaluation.
Receipt of this
form from TPS is the trigger to begin the contract proposal evaluation.
Step 5.
Convene the Evaluation Panel.
After the Requiring
Activity nominates the members of the evaluation panel which
usually consists of the Task Manager (TM) and at least two other
independent evaluators, the Source Selection Authority (SSA)
will make the final determination. The evaluation panel will
perform a review of the proposals. Each evaluator must evaluate
all proposals and comply with the directions provided in this
guide and the FAR.
top
Phase Three – Conduction The
Proposal Evaluation.
Conducting a Lowest
Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Evaluation
As stated earlier,
Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable means that the award will be
made to the offeror whose price is lowest among all proposals that
were deemed to be technically acceptable.
This method does not allow for trade-offs between cost/price and
technical factors.
The lowest price
technically acceptable source selection process is appropriate when
best value is expected to result from selection of the technically
acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price.
(FAR 15.101-2)
Step 1. Prepare
Individual Evaluation Worksheet.
The evaluators
should complete an
LPTA Evaluation Worksheet for EACH proposal
received. The members of the evaluation team should each
individually and independently fill out an
LPTA Evaluation
Worksheet for each proposal.
(example: 4 proposals X 3 Evaluators
= 12 LPTA Evaluation Worksheets).
Upon request, these completed worksheets will be submitted to
TPS.
Unless requested, they will be retained at the requiring
activity.
Step 2. Fill Out the
Evaluation Board/Panel Consensus Form.
The Evaluators should
collectively complete one Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Evaluation Board/Panel Consensus form
for each evaluation. This form documents the evaluation team’s
recommendation and serves as the basis for the Contracting Officer’s
award decision. Fill out the Evaluation Board/Panel Consensus form
using the Adjectival Ratings and apply a rating to each category for
EACH proposal received.
Complete the
Narrative Justification for Final Recommendation section of the
Evaluation Board/Panel Consensus form once the evaluation has
been completed and the recommendation has been made. It is very
important to provide an adequate narrative justification
supporting the final recommendation and an adequate narrative
justification supporting the recommendation NOT to select the
other proposals. The Evaluation Board/Panel Consensus form is to
be signed by the Task Manager or the Program Manager and other
team members.
Discuss the rationale for recommendation based on the
acceptability of the recommended proposal or the unacceptability
of any lower price proposal(s) that were not recommended.
Remarks should describe why the proposal was recommended for
award and most importantly, why the other proposal(s) were NOT
recommended.
The panel must indicate in their narrative justification, any
increased cost/price and/or risk to the Government. For example,
it is not uncommon to see the following proposal language
(especially in the IT/service industry and larger contractors).
All of these statements below could indicate increased
cost/price and/or risk to the Government and must be pointed out
in writing to the Contracting Officer as part of the evaluation
process, so that if an offeror using this language is
recommended for award, such wording can be stricken from the
proposal prior to award.
top
Example #1:
“If the Government does not respond in 2 days, we will
proceed and bill the Government.”
Example #2:
“The Government shall pay for xxxxxx (things not mentioned
in the RFP/RFQ).”
Example #3:
“The Government shall pay invoices IAW contractor’s
milestone billings as shown (not IAW the RFP/RFQ).”
Step 3. Submit Forms
to Acquisition Manager.
When the evaluation
process is complete, submit the Evaluation Transmittal Form(s),
the Evaluator Worksheet(s) and the Evaluation Board/Panel
Consensus form to your Acquisition Manager. The Acquisition
Manager will then submit the forms to the Contracting Officer.
These completed forms constitute the board/panel recommendation.
The Contracting Officer will make the final decision on
selection for award. In accordance with 10 U.S.C. §2330a, as
amended by section 807 of the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense
Authorization Act (FY 2008 NDAA), DoD components are required to
capture and report certain data regarding purchase of services
in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. To facilitate
this process, requiring activities must also complete the
information required in the Inventory of Purchased Services Form
and include it as part of this package.
top
Lowest Price
Technically Acceptable Evaluation Evaluator
Guidelines.
Listed below are some DOs and DON’Ts to consider as you
evaluate an Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Evaluation proposal:
DO evaluate
proposals against the RFP/RFQ requirements.
DO NOT make assumptions.
Evaluate the text in the proposal.
DO LOOK carefully at the text in the proposal that may include
statements and/or assumptions that could indicate increased
cost/price and/or risk to the Government.
DO document your reasoning for any potential increased risk to
the Government on the evaluation form for the Contracting
Officer’s review.
DO NOT compare proposals against one another.
They must be
evaluated individually against the evaluation factors in the
RFP/RFQ.
DO NOT rank proposals.
Only determine if they meet, or do not meet, the acceptable
standards specified in the contract.
top
Conducting a
Trade off Proposal Evaluation
A “Tradeoff” process is
appropriate when it may be in the best interest of the Government to
consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than
the highest technically rated offeror. This process permits
tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the
Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal.
The
perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the
additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented
in the file.
(FAR 15.101-1).
The Tradeoff process is often used when conducting Fair Opportunity
proposal evaluations for Task Orders issued using TMA’s suite of
ID/IQ contracts (T/AARMS. TEAMS and D/SIDDOMS-3).
All three contract
vehicles are administered by the US Army Medical Research
Acquisition Activity (USAMRAA), and USAMRAA has provided
Contracting Officer guidance for conducting these type of
evaluations.
Evaluation Team members should always review this
guidance prior to commencing any evaluation.
Each Evaluator should
complete and submit the “Acknowledgment of Receipt” page and return
it to their supporting Acquisition Manager. Evaluators should keep
this guidance for reference as necessary while conducting the
evaluation.
Step 1.
Prepare Individual Proposal Evaluation Worksheets.
The evaluators
should complete a
Technical Evaluation Worksheet (Tradeoff) and
a
Cost/Price Evaluation Worksheet for EACH proposal received. To
ensure the integrity of the Tradeoff evaluation process, the
technical portion of the evaluation is accomplished without
regard to the cost/price data submitted in the proposals. If the
evaluation is accomplished by separate cost/price and
non-cost/price panels, the non-cost/price or technical panel
will not have access to cost/price data throughout the
evaluation. If a single panel does both non-cost/price and
cost/price evaluations, the panel will not be given access to
cost/price information until all evaluators have completed and
documented the technical evaluation. Multiple worksheets are
required for Tradeoff evaluations.
top
For a
Tradeoff evaluation, worksheets are completed as follows:
A. The
members of the evaluation team should each individually and
independently fill out a
Technical Evaluation Worksheet (Tradeoff) for each proposal (example: 4 proposals X 3
Evaluators = 12 Technical Evaluation Worksheets).
Upon
request, these completed worksheets will be submitted to TPS.
Unless requested, they will be retained at the requiring
activity. If there is not a separate cost/price evaluation
team, the Technical Evaluation Worksheet is completed first,
without evaluator knowledge of any cost or pricing data.
This worksheet contains a section for each evaluation factor
identified in the acquisition package. The worksheet
provides space for evaluators to list the proposal’s
strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies to support the
rating you have given the proposal. When completing the
worksheet, record specific comments, referring not only to
the page and paragraph in the proposal that generated the
comment, but also to the pertinent requirement in the
Statement of Work (SOW). Once each factor has been
evaluated, apply an adjectival rating to each category for
each proposal received. Do not compare proposals against one
another during this part of the Tradeoff evaluation.
Evaluators are encouraged to document their efforts in
obtaining past performance information. A Past Performance
Evaluation Record is available for this purpose.
Since some people may want to “slice and dice” individual
evaluator comments to facilitate the consensus process, TPS
has designed a
Tradeoff Evaluation Template in an Excel format. Sections from each individual Evaluator’s
spreadsheet can be copied into another consolidated
spreadsheet and the data grouped using the MS Excel data
sort functions.
(Hence, the columns to the right, outside
the normal display area). During the consensus sessions, you
can then project parts of this consolidated spreadsheet on
the screen and the group as a whole can quickly pick
comments that best represent the consensus position.
The Technical Evaluation Worksheets for Tradeoff evaluations
were revised in 04/2008. To aid in the evaluation of
proposals in response to RFPs developed prior to these
revisions, the following archive formats are available:
Technical Evaluation Worksheet (Archive)
Tradeoff Evaluation Template in an Excel format (Archive)
top
B. The
members of the evaluation team should each individually and
independently fill out a
Cost/Price Evaluation Worksheet for
each proposal (example: 4 proposals X 3 Evaluators = 12
Cost/Price Evaluation Worksheets).
Upon request, these
completed worksheets will be submitted to TPS. Unless
requested, they will be retained at the requiring activity.
If there is a separate cost/price evaluation team, the
Cost/Price Evaluation Worksheet may be completed separately
by the cost/price evaluation team and concurrently with the
Technical Evaluation Worksheets. Then a single overall
recommendation worksheet may be completed jointly based on
“cross talk” discussions between the technical team and the
cost/price team. If there is no separate cost/price
evaluation team, the Cost/Price Evaluation Worksheet should
be completed by the non-cost/price evaluation team after all
evaluators have completed and documented the non-cost/price
evaluation.
top
The Cost/Price Evaluation Worksheet accomplishes
two things:
It provides a framework for analysis of proposed labor and
other cost/price factors and documents significant variance
from the IGCE.
It also provides for an integration of both non-cost/price
and cost/price aspects of the evaluation, resulting in an
overall "individual" or "cross-talk based" recommendation
that considers both technical and cost aspects of the
proposal.
When completing the Cost/Price Evaluation Worksheet,
evaluators should bear in mind that the current generation
of TMA multiple award contracts such as D/SIDDOMS , TEAMS
and TAARMS will have already had their labor rates certified
as reasonable when the contract is/was awarded. While labor
rates proposed in response to Fair Opportunity solicitations
should be consistent with previously certified rates,
evaluators should nevertheless pay attention to the labor
categories being proposed to ensure that they are
appropriate to accomplish the work described in the
statement of work and the proposal.
Step 2.
Fill Out the Evaluation Board/Panel Consensus Form.
The Evaluators
should collectively complete one
Tradeoff Evaluation Board/Panel Consensus Worksheet for each evaluation.
This form documents the evaluation team’s recommendation and
serves as the basis for the Contracting Officer’s award
decision.
Fill out the Evaluation Board/Panel Consensus form using the
Adjectival Ratings and apply a rating to each category for EACH
proposal received.
Complete the Narrative Justification for Final Recommendation
section of the Evaluation Board/Panel Consensus form once the
evaluation has been completed and the recommendation has been
made.
It is very important to provide an adequate narrative
justification supporting the final recommendation and an
adequate narrative justification supporting the recommendation
NOT to select the other proposals.
The Evaluation Board/Panel Consensus worksheet is to be signed
by the Task Manager or the Program Manager and other evaluation
panel members.
Discuss the rationale for recommendation based on the factors
selected (strengths) and any cost/price trade-offs made if the
lowest price proposal was not recommended. When recommending a
proposal that is not lowest cost, describe WHY the added
technical capability outweighs the cost differential from both
an absolute dollar value and a percent differential.
top
Example #1:
“Vendor A was recommended over Vendors B and C, even though
Vendor B and C offered prices ($X) and (Y%) lower than
Vendor A, because the approach proposed by Vendor A will
significantly reduce risk of performance impact to the
system.”
Example #2:
“Vendor A was recommended over Vendor B, even though Vendor
B’s price was ($X) and (Y%) lower than Vendor A, because the
skills and experience of the staff proposed by Vendor A were
directly related to this project, while those proposed by
Vendor B have never worked with the MHS.”
Remarks should
describe why the proposal was recommended for award and most
importantly, why the other proposal was NOT recommended.
Fill out this section even if you only received one offer.
Example #1:
“Contractor A’s non-cost/price proposal was deemed to be adequate
because it describes a proven approach. The price proposal was
in line with the IGCE.
Therefore, award to Contractor A is
recommended.”
Example #2:
“Contractor A’s non-cost/price proposal was deemed to be adequate
because it describes a proven approach.
However, the price
proposal was 25% more than the IGCE.”
It is critical that the panel’s recommendation be fully
supported by the narrative justification. The evaluation panel
must make a solid “Business Case” for selecting one offeror over
the others. This is particularly important in the following
cases:
top
Where the panel
recommends award to an contractor with the same overall rating as
another, lower priced contractor. The business case must answer the
questions:
Why pay 10% more,
and what does the Government get for the price differential?
Where there are one
or more contractors that meet the requirements of the Contract, however
the panel recommends award to a considerably higher priced
contractor
with a higher overall rating.
The business case must
answer the same questions:
Why pay 10% more,
and what does the Government get for price differential?
Any price / cost in
question should be brought to the attention of the Contracting
Officer.
The panel must also
indicate in their narrative justification, the use of any proposal
language that constitutes an increased risk to the Government.
For example, it is
not uncommon to see the following proposal language (especially
in the IT/service industry and larger contractors).
All of these statements below could indicate increased
cost/price and/or risk to the Government and must be pointed out
in writing to the Contracting Officer as part of the evaluation
process, so that if a Contractor using this language is
recommended for award, such wording can be stricken from the
proposal prior to award.
Example #1:
“If the Government does not respond in 2 days, we will
proceed and bill the Government.”
Example #2:
“The Government shall pay for
Misc. (things not mentioned in the Contract).”
Example #3:
“The Government shall pay invoices IAW contractor’s
milestone billings as shown (not IAW the RFP/RFQ).”
top
Step 3.
Submit Forms to Acquisition Manager.
When the evaluation
process is complete, submit the Evaluation Transmittal Form(s),
the Evaluator Worksheet(s) and the Evaluation Board/Panel
Consensus form to your Acquisition Manager.
The Acquisition
Manager will then submit the forms to the Contracting Officer.
These completed forms constitute the board/panel recommendation.
The Contracting Officer will make the final decision on
selection for award. In accordance with 10 U.S.C. §2330a, as
amended by section 807 of the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense
Authorization Act (FY 2008 NDAA), DoD components are required to
capture and report certain data regarding purchase of services
in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold.
To facilitate this process, requiring activities must also
complete the information required in the
Inventory of Purchased Services Form and include it as part
of this package.
Evaluator Guidelines
for a Tradeoff Evaluation.
Listed below are some DOs / DON’Ts to consider as you conduct a
tradeoff evaluation:
DO evaluate proposals
against the contract requirements.
DO NOT evaluate or compare
proposals against one another during the initial evaluation.
They must be evaluated individually against the evaluation
factors in the contract.
(Once a
recommendation has been made, and the Evaluation Board/Panel
Consensus form is being prepared, and only on the Evaluation
Board/Panel Consensus form, the evaluation team may describe how
the recommended proposal exceeds other competitors.)
top
Example:
WHAT NOT TO WRITE!
Contractor #1’s
approach is not nearly as effective as Offeror #4.
Contractor #3 is equally as capable as Offeror #2.
This
Contractors proposal was significantly stronger than all the
others.
Example:
WHAT TO WRITE!
Contractor #4’s
approach does not meet CMM Level 2 technical requirements as
defined in Section C.4.2. because……
Contractor #2 offers their employees 2 weeks of paid time off
to attend training sessions every year.
This encourages
retention and staff growth.
DO ensure that it is
clear how your comment relates to the evaluation factor.
DO NOT make
assumptions.
Evaluate the text in the proposal.
DO look carefully at
the text in the proposal that may include statements and/or
assumptions that could indicate increased cost/price and/or risk to
the Government.
DO give each proposal
the same consideration up front.
The name of the
offeror should not influence (positively or negatively) the
evaluator’s comments or ratings, except when evaluating past
performance.
DO document your
reasoning for any potential increased risk to the Government on the
evaluation form for the Contracting Officer’s review.
DO provide detailed
comments and accurate references.
Comments should
be complete, clear, and detailed enough that the Contracting
Officer is able to determine the evaluator’s intent without
having to contact them.
top
Example:
WHAT NOT TO WRITE!
Contractor #1, page 10, not where we are going.
NOTE: This meaning would not be clear to the CO.
Example:
WHAT TO WRITE!
Contractor #1, page 10, paragraph 4. The Contractor does not appear to
understand the direction of the program nor the
intent of the Contract and has specified an approach
which has been proven unsuccessful on this program
in the past.
NOTE: This description stands on its own.
Example:
WHAT NOT TO WRITE!
Contractor #1 offers great resumes.
NOTE: Too vague – How are they great?
Example:
WHAT TO WRITE!
The Key
Personnel resume presented by Contractor #1 offers the
Government a strong technical staff member with 13 years
of government experience and 25 years of management
experience.
NOTE: This describes how the experience directly
relates.
top
DO use references to
limit amount of time and space that each comment requires.
Example:
WHAT NOT TO WRITE!
Contractor #1’s approach to MCSE training is overly burdensome for
the Government. Contractor #3 states, “XYZ Inc. proposes to examine
the market to determine if the requirement for an MCSE training
session is required. Once they have determined that there might
be a need…”
Example:
WHAT TO WRITE!
The training approach presented in section 5.5.6 of
Contractor #2’s
proposal relies on the Government participants rather than
contractor responses as required by section 5.4.9 of the
Contract .
DO provide comments
that are clear and “plainly” written.
Avoid using
language that may be too “technical”.
Avoid using
language that is jargon-laden and legalistic. This will not
clearly convey important information but may cause confusion and
misinterpretation.
Avoid undefined or
overused abbreviations and acronyms.
DO
be fair and
consistent in the proposal evaluation.
If an item is
a strength/weakness for one proposal it should also be noted as
a strength/weakness when it appears in other proposals.
Be Critical, but Fair in your evaluation.
DO
NOT “take it easy” or be overly harsh.
Fairly evaluate all proposals against the requirements of the
contract.
top
Always ask yourself:
How is the
contractor going to meet the requirements of the contract?
Simply stating
that, “I will comply” with the requirements does not explain how
they intend to accomplish compliance with the requirements.
DO
NOT make assumptions.
Evaluate the text in the proposal.
Always ask yourself:
If I was present at the
debrief, would I be able to defend this assessment?
Ensure that your
comments are concise, clear and professionally stated.
Antagonistic or inflammatory comments can lead to a protest and must
be avoided. This is important in all materials prepared as part of
the evaluation because all notes, worksheets, and materials are
“discoverable” in a protest. This means, that if a protest occurs,
the Government is legally obligated to provide these materials to
the protesting contractor.
These mistakes can lead
to a protest.
Rating an idea as a
positive in one proposal and the same idea as a negative in another.
Rating based on criteria not included in the Contract.
Conducting a Contract Evaluation for a Modification or Sole Source
Step 1.
Fill Out the Evaluation Recommendation for Modification or Sole Source.
Fill out the
Evaluation Recommendation for Modification or Sole Source using the
Adjectival Ratings and apply a rating to each category for the proposal.
top
Step 2.
Submit Form to Acquisition Manager.
When the
Proposal evaluation
process is complete, submit the Evaluation Transmittal Form and the
Evaluation Recommendation for Modification or Sole Source form to
your Acquisition Manager.
The Acquisition Manager will then submit
the forms to the Contracting Officer.
These completed forms
constitute the board/panel recommendation.
In accordance
with 10 U.S.C. §2330a, as amended by section 807 of the Fiscal Year
2008 National Defense Authorization Act (FY 2008 NDAA), DoD
components are required to capture and report certain data regarding
purchase of services in excess of the simplified acquisition
threshold.
To facilitate this process, requiring activities must
also complete the information required in the
Inventory of Purchased Services Form and include it as part of any Sole Source recommendation package.
The Contracting Officer
will make the final decision regarding the contract proposal for award.
top
|