Acquisition Source Selection -
Pre-Solicitation Processes, Methods and Evaluation Factors
The Most Common Source Selection Processes Include:
Each Requirement Must Be Carefully Assessed:
- To determine which evaluation factors to use.
- Go/No Go Evaluation Factors are pass/fail evaluation factors. A proposal must either satisfy the evaluation factor or be ineligible for contract award.
- Minimum Required Evaluation Factors. These factors establish a minimum rating that a proposal must receive. If the proposal does not receive this rating, it is ineligible for contract award. The difference between minimum required evaluation factors and the go/no go evaluation factors is that a proposal can receive credit for exceeding the minimum required threshold.
- To determine the relative importance of each evaluation factor.
Determine Which Evaluation Factors To Use:
Technical representatives from the program office work closely with the contracting officer to develop the Source Selection Plan and determine the evaluation factors and subfactors based on user requirements, acquisition objectives, perceived risks, and market research. The team should select only those factors that will differentiate among offerors and result in the most advantageous proposal(s). Limit the factors and subfactors to those areas expected to reveal measurable differences or risk levels among the proposals.
Some Common Source Selection Evaluation Factors Include:
Determining the Relative Importance of Each Evaluation Factor:
Weighting the Factors and Subfactors. Numerical weighting (i.e., assigning points or percentages to evaluation factors and subfactors) is the least preferred method for expressing the relative importance. Evaluation factors and subfactors must be definable in readily understood qualitative terms, i.e., adjectives or color-coding, or other indicators, and represent the key areas of importance to be considered in the source selection process. Consistency with which the selected method is applied to all competing proposals and the adequacy of the narrative used to support the rating is the key.
Use priority statements to express the relative importance of the evaluation factors and subfactors. Priority statements relate one evaluation factor or subfactor to each of the other evaluation factors or subfactors.
-
Technical and Management Factors Are Usually Most Important When -
- A requirement is large and complex,
- Specific technical expertise may be most important,
- There are a number of different ways to accomplish the requirement.
-
Past Performance Factors Are Usually Most Important When -
- The requirement is for continuing services
- Using performance-based service contracting
- Acquiring standard supplies or services on a fixed-price basis
- The product or service is standardized, as in commercial or commercial-like products and services
Best Value Evaluation Process:
A best value source selection may be appropriate when it is 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. Best value depends on a number of varying factors. An agency can obtain best value in negotiated acquisitions by using any one or a combination of source selection approaches. In different types of acquisitions, the relative importance of cost or price may vary. For example, in acquisitions where the requirement is clearly definable and the risk of unsuccessful contract performance is minimal, cost or price may play a dominant role in source selection. The less definitive the requirement, the more development work required, or the greater the performance risk, the more technical or past performance considerations may play a dominant role in source selection.
Tradeoff Method for Best Value:
The Tradeoff evaluation methods are more flexible than the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable approach. When using the tradeoff method, evaluate the non-cost portions of the proposal, associated performance, and proposal risks using rating scales. 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. The tradeoff analysis process will result in a source selection decision.
There Are Two Types Of Tradeoffs:
- Performance-Price Tradeoff - past performance is the only factor being traded off against price.
- Technical-Price Tradeoff - technical factors are being traded off against price.
When using a tradeoff process, all evaluation factors and significant subfactors that will affect contract award and their relative importance shall be clearly stated in the solicitation; and the solicitation shall state whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than, approximately equal to, or significantly less important than cost or price.
Rating Scales for Best Value
These scales must be included in the Source Selection Plan and consist of words and/or colors. The success of an evaluation is not so much dependent upon the type of scales used, but rather the consistency with which the evaluators use them. For this reason, the scales must include definitions for each rating to provide the evaluators with a common understanding of how to apply them.
Low Price Technically Acceptable Process
Use the Low Price Technically Acceptable process when price is the most important deciding factor once the technical acceptability of proposals has been determined. A "technically acceptable proposal" is one that meets all the minimum requirements of the solicitation.
As always, the evaluation factors and significant subfactors that establish the requirements of acceptability shall be set forth in the solicitation and 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.
Past performance does not need to be an evaluation factor.
Proposals must be evaluated for acceptability but not scored or ranked on technical factors. This must be a "Pass" or "Fail" determination.
Discussions/exchanges may occur on both technical and price factors. After the competitive range determination, the CO may inform an offeror that their price is too high or too low and reveal results of the Government analysis supporting this conclusion. The CO may also reveal the cost or price that the Government price analysis, market research, and other reviews have identified as reasonable.
Best value determinations and tradeoffs are not permitted.
Tips:
When acquiring standard supplies or services on a fixed-price basis, many have found that using past performance and price as the only evaluation factors is an effective and efficient approach.
When the product or performance of services is standardized, as in commercial or commercial-like products and services, the competitors will generally be alike in their technical and management approaches and it is likely that they would be rated as roughly equal. This would, in effect, make technical and management factors ineffective for this specific evaluation. In such instances, substituting past performance for the technical or management evaluation factors rather than adding past performance as another evaluation factor would make the evaluation more effective.