"Deciphering the Source Selection Process & Teaming to Win" - North Carolina Military Business Center
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
“Deciphering the Source Selection
Process & Teaming to Win”
North Carolina Military Business Center
Scott Dorney – Executive Director
Jennifer Burrell‐Willson – MILCON Specialist
Susan Kranes – MILCON SpecialistAgenda • NCMBC Introduction • Source Selection • Teaming & Joint Venturing • Questions
Mission & Goals
• Mission:
– To leverage military and other federal business
opportunities for economic development and
quality of life in North Carolina
• Goals:
– Increase military business for NC companies
– Integrate military/families into workforce
– Support defense‐related recruitment
• Community College System, 13 offices in NCServices & Metrics
• Business Development:
– Identify, source opportunities and assist businesses
CY2005‐2008 577 Contracts $1.06 ‐ $1.99 billion
CY2009 9 Contracts $19.4 ‐ $519.1 million
• Technology Resources (ncmbc.us, MatchForce.org):
– Contract and employment intel, matching, notification
12,385 NC Businesses 27,138 Individuals
12,044 Contract Opportunities 4,063 Job Opportunities
Data as of: 26 JAN 2009Strategic Focus 2009 ‐ 2010 • Emerging opportunities: pre‐position NC teams • Subcontracting: with major defense primes • Aerospace Alliance, Defense Machining Initiative • Employment initiatives: transitioning military • Leveraging base growth in North Carolina • Leveraging military construction opportunities ($5‐7 billion in NC by 2012)
Military Construction
Marketplace
• Transformation of the force
• Relocation of forces from overseas
• Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
• Higher quality of life standards (new, SRM)
• Commercialized family housing
• Sustainable installations
• “Grow the Force”“Deciphering the Source Selection Process”
Overview • What is the source selection process? • Federal Acquisition Regulations Parts 15 and 36 • What is best value trade‐off? • What is low price technically acceptable? • What is a two‐phased evaluation? • What is single‐phased evaluation? • Evaluation Factors • Technical Evaluation Boards (TEBs) • Rating Schemes Used • Competitive range determination • Discussions or Clarifications • Debriefing Process
What is the Source
Selection Process?
Source selection is the decision
process used in competitive
negotiated contracting to select
the proposal that offers the best
value to the Government.What is the Source
Selection Process?
• This process is authorized by the Federal
Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Part 15.
• There are two types of source selection
approaches:
– Best Value trade off
– Low Price Technically AcceptableFAR Part 15 • Part 15 – Contracting by Negotiations • Lowest price technically acceptable – expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price • Tradeoff (technical vs. cost) – Government may consider award to other than the lowest price offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror
FAR Part 36 • Part 36 – Construction & A/E Contracts • Quality based selection procedures • Brooks Bill Act The Brooks Act is a United States Federal Law passed in 1972 that requires that the U.S. Federal Government select engineering and architecture firms based upon their competency, qualifications and experience rather than by price.
The A/E Prime Process
Qualification Submittal (SF330)
3 Most Qualified Firms Identified
Negotiations with Most Qualified Firm
(No. 1 Firm)
Fair & Equitable Price Reached No Agreement Reached
OR
FIRM SELECTED NEGOTIATIONS TERMINATED
*If an equitable price is not reached with any
of the 3 firms deemed most qualified, selection Process Repeats – Begin
criteria is opened to additional firms.
Negotiation (No. 2 Firm)FAR Part 36 – Construction
and A&E Contracts (con’t)
• Intent: Select Most Qualified Firm/Team
offering Best Value to Government
• Potential Reality: Selection may still be based
on priceFAR Part 15 + 36 = Design
Build
• Procurements solicited under this authority
• Design Build = Prime (GC) partnered with AE
selected for both design and construction
• Brooks Act does not apply
• Request for Proposal (RFP) is used for bothRoles & Responsibilities
• The Source Selection Process has three
boards:
– Source Selection Authority (SSA)
– Source Selection Board (SSB) Technical Evaluation
Board (TEB)
– Price Evaluation Board (PEB)
• Each board has specific responsibilities
• Source Selection Authority‐ The final decision
makerRoles and Responsibilities • Source Selection Board – are members usually the contracting officer, a technical person, client and legal. This board reviews the results of the TEB evaluation report and is briefed by the Chairperson of the TEB to the SSB on their findings. • SSB will either concur or not, provide comments to the TEB, or determine what contractors are in line for award or advancement to a phase II procurement; or make an award
Roles and Responsibilities • The SSB will brief the SSA on the technical merits and make recommendation as discussed previously. • Note: The SSA is the final decision maker. • Technical Evaluation Board – is made up of personnel with the required technical skills e.g. civil, architectural, electrical, mechanical for the project in question. These boards are not standardized
Roles and Responsibilities • Price Evaluation Board – usually one person will evaluate the reasonableness of an offeror’s pricing.
What is the best value –trade
off process?
• Evaluation factors & significant subfactors
that affect contract award and relative
importance are clearly stated in RFP
• RFP also states how all evaluation factors
other than cost or price are weighted
compared to price (e.g. price is equal to all
technical factors combined)What is the best value‐trade
off process?
• Permits tradeoffs among cost or price and
non‐cost factors
• Allows the Government to accept other than
the lowest priced proposalWhat is low‐price technically
acceptable?
• Proposals evaluated on technical merits
• Firm/Team offering Technically Acceptable
proposal with lowest price is selected
• Technically Acceptable = Meets the RFP
Requirements of Solicitation
• No trade off analysis used in this approachWhat is a two‐phased
evaluation?
• Two‐phase process minimizes proposal costs for
offerors
– Firms/Teams not likely to be competitive do not move
to Phase II
– Reduces number of proposals to be evaluated to
manageable level
– Number of offerors selected is stated in RFP
• Phase I – Identifies the offerors who are most
qualified for the requirement. Those selected
advance to Phase II
• Phase II – Limited to most qualified offerors
identified in Phase IWhat is two‐phased
evaluation? (con’t)
• Note: In two‐phased methodology, cost is not
part of Phase I. Cost is submitted by
shortlisted offerors in Phase II
• Note: Phase I ratings are forwarded to Phase
II of the RFP process.What is a single‐phased
evaluation?
• Used when a large number of proposals are
anticipated
• Utilizes an “advisory” down select in accordance with
FAR 15.202.
– The purpose of using an advisory down select is to identify
which offerors are viable competitors for award. T
• Approach does not guarantee:
– Offerors won’t expend resources preparing proposals for a
contract they have little chance of receiving
– Number of proposals will be reduced
• Bottom line: Offeror must make internal decision on
level of resources devoted to pursuing awardDifference Between Single &
Double Phase
• Primary Difference:
– Single Phase: Cost, Technical (e.g. Design), and
Qualifications submitted in one phase
– Two Phase: Qualifications Submitted in Phase I;
Cost and Technical (e.g. Design) Submitted by
Shortlisted Firms in Phase IICompetitive Range
Determination
• Government uses Technical (non‐cost) and
cost to determine competitive range
• Offerors with most highly rated technical and
competitive pricing advance to competitive
range determination
• Applies to both Single and Two‐Phase
ApproachesEvaluation Factors
• Should be stated in “Section M” of the RFP
• Must inform offerors of the importance of each
evaluation factor to include the importance of
subfactors
– Example: Some factors may be equal to each other; or
in descending order of importance, or two or three
factors may have more importance than the last
factor etc. Any combination that the Government
determines to be of value must be stated within the
RFP.Evaluations Factors
• Corporate experience
– Construction team
– Design team
– Key personnel
• Management Approach
• Safety – Construction (Navy Only)
• Past Performance
• Support for Small Business
• Technical Approach
• PriceDefinitions • Corporate Experience ‐ refers to what the corporation experience is in. What do you do? What do you build, or service? • Management Approach – is what is the corporation’s approach to meeting the Government’s requirement. What resources will be used, identification of resources to be used etc. • Safety – is how well does the contractor adhere to safety requirements, OSHA etc. This is based on EMR, LWDR, RIR and OSHA citations • Past Performance – refers to “how well did you perform” on projects that you have done
Definitions • Past Performance is a subjective assessment of the quality of previous relevant work. Two aspects are considered, relevancy evaluation that assesses how relevant on offeror’s past performance is to the project under consideration. The second portion of the evaluation is performance feedback (positive or negative) that the corporation received on completed projects usually w/in 5 year period
Definitions • Small Business Support – this is two parts • Part I ‐ Past performance in supporting the social economic programs for small business participation. • Part II ‐ The subcontracting plan (where the Contractor demonstrates how they will use small businesses on the project and the % of the dollars to each category e.g HubZone, Women‐owned, SDVOB)
Definitions
• Technical approach‐ is tailored to the
individual procurement
– This can include the exact organization,
sketches/drawings, site plans, QC plan, and other
submittal requirements the Government desires
• Price – the cost the offeror is stating it takes
to perform the workRating Schemes • Normally adjectival ratings are used: Excellent, Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, Poor. • Some Agencies may used colors. Blue, Green, Yellow, and Red • Quantitative ratings are not used. 15, 10,5, 0 as a means to evaluate proposals • Associated with these rating schemes are the “risk factors”
Rating Schemes (con’t)
RISK
• Risk is identified as High, Moderate, and Low.
These are tied to the adjectival ratings.
– For example. Under an “Excellent” rating, the
verbiage used would be that the offer has exceeded
the Government’s requirements and the risk
associated with this offer is low.
OR
– A “Poor” rating would be the offeror has failed to
meet the Government’s requirements and appears to
not understand the requirements, the risk associated
with this offer would be high.Rating Schemes (con’t) • Associated with the actual adjectival rating and the risk factor, the ratings determined, would be based on the Government’s identification of any strengths, weaknesses and/or deficiencies of the offerors proposal • These strengths, weaknesses and/or deficiencies are identified for each evaluation factor identified by the Government in the RFP
Definitions • Strength – A significant, outstanding, or exceptional aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has met and exceeds the specified performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the Government and will be included in the contract or is inherent in the offeror’s process.
Definitions • Weakness ‐ An aspect or omission from an offeror’s proposal that may contribute to a failure in meeting the specified minimum performance or capability requirements • Deficiency –A material failure of a proposal to meet a government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level
Discussions • Discussions is when the Government “opens” discussion with all offerors. This happens when offeror (s) proposal are not clear or requires further explanation. It also means without this additional information the Government cannot provide an appropriate rating. • Note: the Government is not required to hold discussions. This is stated in the RFP. It’s in the best interest of the offeror to submit their best proposal at time and due date of the submission.
Debriefing Process • Pre‐award Debrief • Post‐award Debrief • Debriefs are important even if an offeror wins. They enable an offeror to improve their future proposal submissions.
Debriefing – What it is • A debriefing is a meeting between government personnel and an offeror who has been eliminated from the competition either prior to or after contract award. • Pre‐award debrief is conducted prior to award of a contract or when a two phased procurement is used. Offerors who did not advance to Phase II are entitled to a pre‐award debrief. • Offerors in Phase II are also entitled to a post award debrief and those Phase I offerors who requested a debrief after award.
Debriefing – Why it’s done • To explain the rationale for exclusion from the competition • To instill confidence in the offeror that it was treated fairly • To assure the offeror that proposals were evaluated in accordance with the RFP, applicable laws and regulations • To identify weaknesses, strenghts of an offeror’s proposal • To reduce any misunderstanding and protests • To give the offeror an opportunity to provide feedback regarding the solicitation, discussions, evaluation and the entire source selection process.
Debriefing‐ What it’s not • A page by page analysis of the offeror’s proposal • A comprehensive point‐by‐point comparison of the proposals of the debriefed offeror and the successful offeror(s) • A debate or defense of the Government’s award decision or evaluation results
Debriefings – The
Requirements
• Requests must be submitted in writing to the
Government
• Request must be received within 3 days after
the offeror received notification of exclusion
from the competition or contract award“Teaming to Win”
Joint Venture Defined
• Joint Venture = Strategic alliance where two
or more people/companies agree to
contribute goods, services, and /or capital to a
common commercial enterprise.
• SBA and (8a) Joint Ventures must be approved
by SBA prior to award of an 8(a) contract (not
prior to bidding)
– Note: 8(a) Joint Venture approvals may take up to
20 business days if submitted without errorSpecial JV Opportunity • SBA Approved 8(a) Mentor‐Protégé Agreement • Two firms approved by SBA to be a mentor and a protégé under 3 CFR 124.520 may JV as small for the procurement (and if an 8(a) sole source procurement, has not met the dollar limit $3.5M.
JVs & Percentage of Work
• When the “exclusion from affiliation rules”
Including mentor protégé apply:
– The performance of work requirements apply to
the cooperative effort of the team or JV partners,
not its individual members.
• SBA Mentor Protégé Guidelines are available
at www.sba.gov/8abdJVs vs. Teaming
Arrangements
• JV = Strategic alliance between 2 or more
companies who agree to contribute goods,
services, and/or capital to a common
commercial enterprise.
• Teaming or partnering = Where two or more
parties will work together to either run a
business or to work on a specific project.
– Read: Prime‐Subcontractor relationship.Pros/Cons of JV
PROS CONS
• On seamless entity that • Lack of past performance
performs the work
for the entity itself unless
• Reduces possible confusion in
evaluating proposals the solicitation allows
• Joint venture subcontracts members past performance
directly with subcontractors history to be considered
• Each member of the JV retains
ownership of his or her • Liability ‐ JV is responsible
property for all debts , and
• Each member of the JV shares performance of the
only the expenses of the contract
particular project or venture
• Tax advantagesPros/Cons of JV (cont.) PROS CONS • Both entities gain experience • Limited use to a specific if they bid on other projects separately venture • Both entities expand their • If performance is less than marketing capabilities acceptable could damage • Build credibility with a future projects with same particular target maker • Access to new markets that JV members would be inaccessible without a partner • Access to needed information and resources
Small Business JVs ‐
Caution!
• JVs formed for Small Business Set‐Asides
– Average Annual Receipts of all JV Partners must
add to less than Small Business Size Standard
• e.g. NAICS 236220 has size standard of $33.5 million
– Partner conveying status (e.g. SDVO, 8(a), etc)
must be 51% partner
– HUBZone firms may only JV with other HUBZone
firmsTeaming Agreements • Prime –subcontractor relationship • “Privity of contract” is with the prime contractor and government and not its team members • Evaluation factors are that of the prime and may not include the team members. In most cases such as DB, the construction and A&E firm are considered for evaluation purposes
Contact Information • Scott D. Dorney, Executive Director, 910‐323‐4824, dorneys@ncmbc.us • Jennifer Burrell‐Willson, MILCON Specialist, 910‐467‐ 3230, burrellj@ncmbc.us • Sue Kranes, MILCON Specialist, 336‐275‐0555, kraness@ncmbc.us • Lydia Joglar, MatchForce Administrator, 910‐323‐ 4587, joglarl@ncmbc.us
You can also read
