6c071 Vol 1 Analysis

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

Final report

Interim report

Addendum report

Annual interim report

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