Contracting 7 Level CDCs

Permits the use of tradeoffs between price and non-price factors.

May include non-price factors such as technical and past performance.

Allows the government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal.

Requires the relative importance of all evaluation factors to be identified in the solicitation.

Section C

Section K

Section L

Section M

Provide offeror representations and certifications.

Identify previous experience with similar requirements.

Address how it intends to meet the government’s requirement.

Demonstrate the financial capacity to complete the subsequent contract.

Determine the contractor non-responsive.

Eliminate the offeror from the competitive range.

Remove pages in excess of the maximum allowed from the back of the proposal.

Accept the proposal “as is” only if determined to be one of the most highly rated proposals.

The government may hold discussions at any time regardless of the request for proposal (RFP) instructions.

The government is not obligated to notify offerors of its intent to award without discussions.

It is in the government’s best interest to avoid discussions for time-sensitive acquisitions.

Discussions may be held with only the most favored offerors still within the competitive range.

Using discriminators.

Using non-commercial specifications.

Including as many evaluation factors as possible.

Tailoring the evaluation criteria contained in Section K.

Is only evaluated when using tradeoffs.

Must be evaluated in every source selection.

May not be used as an evaluation factor when using tradeoffs.

Is only evaluated when an acquisition is subject to the Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA).

Price only.

The acceptability of a product or service only.

The acceptability of non-price evaluation factors or subfactors.

The rankings of non-price factor/subfactors and the acceptability of a product or service.

Green/Good.

Yellow/Marginal.

Blue/Outstanding.

Purple/Acceptable.

Complexity

Dollar value

Similarity of service/support.

Number of contracts performed.

No Confidence

Limited Confidence

Unknown Confidence.

Satisfactory Confidence.

Use of weighted guidelines.

Comparison of proposed prices.

Use of parametric estimating methods.

Analysis of data other than certified cost or pricing data.

Type of funding being used.

Differences in quantities or size.

Use of federal supply schedules.

Differences in contractor business size

The requirement must be cancelled and resolicited.

Other than certified cost or pricing data may be used.

Use a cost analysis to evaluate data other than certified cost or pricing data.

Offerors must provide certified cost or pricing data to support the proposed cost.

Past performance information provided directly by the offeror should not be relied upon.

The past performance evaluation satisfies the responsibility determination required under FAR subpart 9.1.

Evaluations should take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies.

Offerors with demonstrated past performance that is neither relevant nor recent must not be removed from further consideration for award.

Analyze each offeror’s profit margin.

Only be conducted by the contract officer (CO).

Review each offeror’s experience on similar projects.

Examine the types and quantities of materials proposed.

Only the top five firms should be included in the competitive range.

A proposal may be included in the competitive range even though it is not among the most highly rated.

Include only those proposals within 20 percent of the most favorable proposal in the competitive range.

Limit the number of proposals to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

Negotiate prices with only those offerors who are in the competitive range.

Determine whether or not a proposal should be placed in the competitive range.

Identify proposal deficiencies and allow offerors to revise its proposal accordingly.

Discuss aspects of an offeror’s proposal that could, in the opinion of the CO, be altered to materially enhance the proposal’s potential for award.

Discussions allow for revisions to proposals.

Discussions are used to establish the competitive range.

Discussions must be held with only those offerors in the competitive range.

Discussions permit offerors to clarify aspects of the proposal that are deficient.

Discussions

Notifications

Clarifications

Communications

Obtain the lowest price possible.

Never settle on a price that is outside of the government’s minimum and maximum objective.

Negotiate a contract type with a price providing the greatest incentive for efficient performance.

Negotiate a contract below what the government believes is reasonable for a particular contract requirement while still allowing the contractor to make a profit.

Minimum price position.

Objective price position.

Median price position.

Maximum price position.

Both parties to a negotiation expect movement by the other party.

When the price negotiation is based on price analysis, contract officers (CO) are required to analyze profit.

Before entering into competitive discussions, develop separate minimum, objective, and maximum positions for each proposal.

In competitive discussions, minimum contract requirements cannot be changed unless all offerors remaining in the competitive range have an opportunity to revise their proposal.

Using concessions to split any differences.

Threatening to cancel and resolicit the requirement.

Using other non-price factors to take the focus off price alone.

Establishing an opening position that allows room to compromise.

A reasonable person would consider it to be a bad deal.

The government will exceed its maximum price position.

The negotiations begin to exceed a reasonable amount of time.

The parties cannot agree on price alone, although it is known that a better deal does not exist.

Not further consider the offeror for award.

Provide suggestions on how to correct the deficiency.

Identify it and provide the offeror an opportunity to improve the proposal.

Discuss every aspect of the proposal that received less than the maximum possible rating.

Discussions will not involve offers and counteroffers.

The government will rely on the forces of competition to obtain a win/win result.

The contract officer (CO) may request or allow a proposal revision to clarify the offeror’s position for further discussion.

The CO will negotiate with only those offerors whose proposals appear most favorable to the government.

Sole Source Letter.

Best Value Determination.

Determination and Findings.

Price Negotiation Memorandum.

Compare proposals against each other.

The evaluation criteria established in the Request for Proposal (RFP) must be used.

The government may not request final proposal revisions from any offerors.

The government may only make tradeoffs between cost/price and non-cost/price factors.

The SSDD must include the rationale for any business judgments made or relied on.

The SSDD may use reports and analyses prepared by others as supporting rationale.

The SSDD must support the selection of the best value proposal consistent with the stated evaluation criteria.

The SSDD represents the Source Selection Evaluation Team’s independent, integrated, comparative assessment and decision.

The number of offerors.

The identity of other offerors.

The rationale for eliminating the offeror from the completion.

The ranking of the offeror (if rankings were used) in comparison with other offerors.

The overall evaluated cost or price and technical ratings of all offerors.

The government’s evaluation of the signification weaknesses in the offeror’s proposal.

Names of individuals providing reference information about the offeror’s past performance.

A point by point comparison of the debriefed offeror’s proposal with those of other offerors.

No further questions are permissible.

Debriefings may be reopened at the discretion of the contract officer (CO).

Only the most highly rated offers will be retained for use in future acquisitions.

Requests for additional information must be submitted in writing with 3 days after conclusion of the debriefing.

The CO may decline to provide the debriefing.

The CO must limit the debriefing to who received the award and the award amount.

The CO must provide a complete debriefing to all offerors who request one regardless of timeliness.

The CO is required to provide a debriefing in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act.

Ensure all of an offeror’s questions are answered.

Provide timely debriefings in response to written requests.

Document when an offeror receives notification of being excluded from the competitive range.

Use source selection documents and evaluation reports to form the basis of debriefing material.

May only be provided via a formal conference.

Is mandatory and must be provided to all government contractors prior to starting work on a military installation.

Is used to validate contractor payrolls and ensure compliance with labor laws.

May be used to issue the Notice to Proceed.

Contracting authority.

A review of the pricing schedule.

Statutory matters such as labor standards.

A review of performance and payment bonds.

Establishes the submittal process.

Requires all used equipment, material, and articles to be like new.

Requires contractors to warrant construction for a minimum of 5 years from the date final payment is made.

Provides a detailed list of the most suitable equipment and materials that may be incorporated into work covered by the contract.

Within a reasonable time.

Prior to issuance of the Notice to Proceed.

Within 3 days after receipt of the submittal.

Within 10 days after receipt of the submittal.

For all construction contracts.

For only architect and engineering contracts.

When contracts exceed the SAT and the performance period is greater than 30 days.

When contracts exceed the SAT and the performance period is greater than 60 days.

The use of subcontractors does not hinder the target performance progress.

The contractor has identified areas in which unforeseen delays are expected.

The target and actual performance progress is plotted prior to beginning work.

The length of time allotted for each task is reasonable based on the task being performed.

Payrolls

Progress report.

Preorientation conference.

Material approval submittal.

Time only.

Money only.

Both time and money.

Neither time nor money.

It is for the contractor’s benefit.

The acceleration is not government directed.

The acceleration is always compensable if the government allows it to continue.

If the government allows the acceleration and does nothing, it could potentially be held to have constructively accelerated the contractor.

Profit cannot be paid during the suspension period.

The contractor may be granted a time extension under this clause.

The clause provides the contractor with an adjustment for any increase in cost of performance.

The government may suspend work under the contractor for a period of time the CO deems appropriate.

Default clause.

Changes clause.

Suspension of Work clause

Schedules for Construction clause.

Official use only.

Classified use only.

Unclassified use only.

Both unclassified and classified use.

Orders placed against FSS are not reportable.

Only those orders that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.

Only those orders that exceed $1,000,000.

Only those orders that exceed $5,000,000.

Relaxing the announced criteria.

Failure to follow the existing criteria.

Excluding offerors from the competitive range that are not amongst the most highly rated proposals.

Imposing additional unannounced criteria to increase the number of discriminators needed to include only the most highly rated proposals in the competitive range.

Cardinal change.

Unilateral change.

Restrictive change.

Constructive change.