CON 280 Source Selection and the Administration of

CON 280: Source Selection and the Administration of Service Contracts Day 7 Proposal Evaluation and Selection Decision Exercise Group Results CON 280, Day 7, Proposal Evaluation and Selection Decision Group Answer v 2. 0 Group #: ______1

Exercise Part 1 • Address the following: – – Evaluation Compliance with the RFP Information Allowability Issues to be Addressed During Discussions Competitive Range Determination CON 280, Day 7, Proposal Evaluation and Selection Decision Group Answer v 2. 0 2

Evaluation Compliance with RFP Were proposals evaluation IAW the ratings in the evaluation criteria from the RFP? Address each factor: • Technical Table 1. Technical Ratings Color Rating Blue Outstanding Purple Good Green Acceptable Yellow Marginal Red Unacceptable Description Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies. Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies. Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies. Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable. CON 280, Day 7, Proposal Evaluation and Selection Decision Group Answer v 2. 0 3

Evaluation Compliance with RFP Determine if proposals were evaluated IAW the evaluation criteria for each factor per the RFP. • Technical Table 2. Technical Risk Ratings Rating Description Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties. Moderate Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties. High Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring. CON 280, Day 7, Proposal Evaluation and Selection Decision Group Answer v 2. 0 4

Evaluation Compliance with RFP Determine if proposals were evaluated IAW the evaluation criteria for each factor per the RFP. • Cost/Price Cost Evaluation Criteria. In accordance with FAR 15. 404 -1, each offeror’s cost proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness, realism, and affordability. CON 280, Day 7, Proposal Evaluation and Selection Decision Group Answer v 2. 0 5

Evaluation Compliance with RFP Determine if proposals were evaluated IAW the evaluation criteria for each factor per the RFP. • Past Performance – Recency? For the purposes of this source selection, recent past performance is defined as contracts performed within three (3) years of the date of the issuance of the solicitation. CON 280, Day 7, Proposal Evaluation and Selection Decision Group Answer v 2. 0 6

Evaluation Compliance with RFP Determine if proposals were evaluated IAW the evaluation criteria for each factor per the RFP. • Past Performance – Relevancy? Table 3. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Very Relevant Somewhat Relevant Not Relevant Definition Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. CON 280, Day 7, Proposal Evaluation and Selection Decision Group Answer v 2. 0 7

Evaluation Compliance with RFP Determine if proposals were evaluated IAW the evaluation criteria for each factor per the RFP. • Past Performance – Performance Confidence? Table 4. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Description Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Substantial Confidence Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Satisfactory Confidence Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Limited Confidence Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the No Confidence Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Unknown Confidence (Neutral) offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. CON 280, Day 7, Proposal Evaluation and Selection Decision Group Answer v 2. 0 8

Information Allowability • [Is there any information included in the evaluation summary that must be excluded from the decision? Hint: see past performance evaluation information] CON 280, Day 7, Proposal Evaluation and Selection Decision Group Answer v 2. 0 9

Evaluation Summary (Non-Cost Factors) Factor Offeror A Offeror B Offeror C Offeror D Management Approach - Risk Technical Capability – Risk Phase-in Plan – Risk Small Business Utilization – Risk Overall Technical Past Perf. Overall Risk Relevancy Confidence CON 280, Day 7, Proposal Evaluation and Selection Decision Group Answer v 2. 0 10

Evaluation Notices (ENs) / Technical • [In the table, identify ENs and potential areas for Discussions that your group would address during Discussions for each of the four offerors. Include your thoughts on what information or actions you would request for each. ] Evaluation Factor Proposal Issue for Discussion Action / Information Presented or Requested (Use separate slides for each offeror; add extra slides as necessary) CON 280, Day 7, Proposal Evaluation and Selection Decision Group Answer v 2. 0 11

Evaluation Notices (ENs) / Price/Cost • [Identify in a table for each of the four offerors any ENs and potential areas for Discussions that your group would address during Discussions. Include your thoughts on what information or actions you would request for each] Evaluation Factor Proposal Issue for Discussion Action / Information Presented or Requested (Use separate slides for each offeror; add extra slides as necessary) CON 280, Day 7, Proposal Evaluation and Selection Decision Group Answer v 2. 0 12

Evaluation Notices (ENs) / Past Performance • [Identify in a table for each of the four offerors any ENs and potential areas for Discussions that your group would address during Discussions. Include your thoughts on what information or actions you would request for each] Evaluation Factor Proposal Issue for Discussion Action / Information Presented or Requested (Use separate slides for each offeror; add extra slides as necessary) CON 280, Day 7, Proposal Evaluation and Selection Decision Group Answer v 2. 0 13

Competitive Range Determination • [Background on offerors (e. g. , # of proposals; Large Business/Small Disadvantaged Business? , key subcontractors, other important characteristics. ] NEDCO, Inc. SIP, Inc. Largo, Inc. Jan. Kell Corp Business Size (small or large) Subcontractors CON 280, Day 7, Proposal Evaluation and Selection Decision Group Answer v 2. 0 14

Competitive Range Determination • [Short summary of how all the offerors were evaluated for each factor IAW the RFP] CON 280, Day 7, Proposal Evaluation and Selection Decision Group Answer v 2. 0 15

Competitive Range Determination • Use the below table for each offeror and fill in the technical rating cells with the appropriate color. Component Mgmt. Approach Technical Capability Phase-in Plan Sm. Bus. Utilization Overall Technical Risk Relevancy of Recent Efforts Confidence Assessment Total Evaluated Price Number of Issues Identified Past Perform. Cost/Price CON 280, Day 7, Proposal Evaluation and Selection Decision Group Answer v 2. 0 16

Competitive Range Determination • Comparison of the four offerors NEDCO, Inc. SIP, Inc. Largo, Inc. Jan. Kell Corp Technical Risk Past Performance Cost / Price CON 280, Day 7, Proposal Evaluation and Selection Decision Group Answer v 2. 0 17

Competitive Range Determination • [List recognized offerors who will be included in the Competitive Range and provide justification] • [List recognized offerors who will be removed from the Competitive Range (eliminated offerors) and provide justification] • [Additional comments or notes] CON 280, Day 7, Proposal Evaluation and Selection Decision Group Answer v 2. 0 18

Exercise Part 2 • Develop a briefing to the SSA that addresses the following: – – Competitive Range Determination Basis of Award Evaluation Summary Award Recommendation & Justification CON 280, Day 7, Proposal Evaluation and Selection Decision Group Answer v 2. 0 19

Background • Competitive Range Determination [Summarize] • Results of Discussions with Offerors [Summarize] CON 280, Day 7, Proposal Evaluation and Selection Decision Group Answer v 2. 0 20

Basis of Award • Factors and Subfactors – Cost / Price – Technical (Risk evaluated separately) • • Management Approach Technical Capability Phase-in Plan Small Business Utilization – Past Performance • [Give Order of Importance between the three factors as well as the four subfactors under Technical] CON 280, Day 7, Proposal Evaluation and Selection Decision Group Answer v 2. 0 21

Evaluation Summary (Non-Cost Factors) Factor Enter Offeror’s name Management Approach - Risk Technical Capability – Risk Phase In - Risk Subcontracting - Risk Overall Technical Past Perf. Overall Risk Relevancy Confidence CON 280, Day 7, Proposal Evaluation & Selection Decision Solution Set v 2. 0 Enter Offeror’s name

Evaluation Summary (Price / Cost) • Price / Cost Adjustments Offeror A Offeror B Offeror C Offeror D Total Proposal Price Net Government Cost Adjustments (+ / -) Government Total Evaluated Price Spreadsheet to help with cost adjustments CON 280, Day 7, Proposal Evaluation and Selection Decision Group Answer v 2. 0 23

Evaluation Summary (Price / Cost) Millions Total Government Evaluated Price $ 180 $ 178 $ 176 $ 174 $ 172 $ 170 $ 168 $ 166 $ 164 $ 162 $ 160 Vendor A Vendor B CON 280, Day 7, Proposal Evaluation and Selection Decision Group Answer Vendor C Vendor D 24

Award Recommendation • [Recommended Source] • [Justification] (Use additional slides as necessary) CON 280, Day 7, Proposal Evaluation and Selection Decision Group Answer 25