acquisition support team training

1

311 HSW

AST Training

for Hanscom MFHPrivatization Selection

Bob Urey311th HSW/PKOADSN 240-3592

2

311 HSW

AGENDA

• Inherently Governmental Functions

• Selection Organization Overview

• Responsibilities (SA, AST and PSC) & AST membership

• Selection Information/Procurement Integrity

• Planning and Preparation

• Exchanges/Discussions

• Decisions/Debriefings

• Summary

3

311 HSW

Inherently Governmental Functions

• Legal advice to government officials

• Decision to approve the draft RFP & RFP

• Determination whether a proposal complies with the RFP

• Decision to amend the RFP

• Determination to exclude or include an offer within the competitive range

• Determination of adequate price competition

• Assignment of past performance rating

• Assignment of color codes to factors


4

311 HSW


Inherently Governmental Functions (cont’d)

• Assignment of risk assessment ratings

• Comparative analysis of offers• Integrated assessment as to which proposal

provides the best overall value to the government• Decision to select a particular developer’s proposal

for award• Decision concerning the substance & extent of

discussions or negotiations. Discussions

through ENs require AF approval in advance

• Authority to enter into legally binding documents

5

311 HSW

Selection Organization

Overview

6

311 HSW

Organization/Responsibilities

Step 1Vol I & II

Step 2Vol III, IV & V

PSC Evaluation Team

Acquisition Support Team (AST)(AST) Co-Chairs

Air Force AdvisorsMAJCOM Staff (FM, JA, PK)

AFCEE Staffs

Selection Authority (SA)MAJCOM/CV

PSC Responsibilities- Receives Proposals- Conducts Evaluations- Recommends Ratings

AST- Reviews/Verifies Evaluations- Assigns/Approves Ratings

7

311 HSW

Responsibilities & AST

Membership

8

311 HSW

Responsibilities

SA Responsibilities: Overall responsibility to direct the selection process Approves the Execution Plan (competition plan)

Ensure there’s no unauthorized disclosure of selection information Approves release of Evaluation Notices (ENs) (unless delegated)

Determines if award without discussions is appropriate

9

311 HSW

Responsibilities

SA Responsibilities: (cont.) Approves exclusion of offeror from down select from Step 1 to Step 2

Makes selection decision

Approves/Signs Selection Decision Document (SDD)

10

311 HSW

SAC: Reviews evaluations and findings of PSC/AST Provides advice, analysis and recommendation (if requested) to

SA

“Dry-Run” briefings with “whole AST team” Discuss/review any changes with entire AST Should review all briefings to offerors

Responsibilities

A F A d v iso rs (JA , P K , F M )S e le c tio n A d viso ry C o u n c il

B a se C E S /C E H

B a se C E

B a se C E S

S P T G /C C

H Q LG

H Q F M

H Q C E

A F C E E /F in a n ce

A F C E E /P M

A cq u is it ion S u pp o rt T e amS e lec tio n A u th o rity

Acquisition Support TeamMembership

12

311 HSWAcquisition Support Team

Acquisition Support Team (AST) Chair/Co-Chairs

• Leads government officials performing “inherently governmental” assessment of the PSC evaluations

• Assigns duties to team members• Reviews PSC Proposal results and Comments• Analyzes Strengths, PIs, Deficiencies & Weaknesses

to form a subjective Proposal Rating and Risk Rating• Reviews/recommends/approves ENs• Assesses EN Responses and Disposition of ENs• Checks for Consistency in evaluation process

13


Oversees the PSC’s work during selection process

Validates the results of the assessment

Reviews/recommends release of Evaluation Notices (ENs)

Validates PSC recommendation to the MAJCOM/CV

Out-briefs non-selects Although the AST’s role is analogous to that of a source

selection team, the AST’s evaluation will rely significantly on the assessment performed by the PSC

14


• Read entire proposal• Verify, as a minimum, the minimum threshold requirements of

proposal are covered by Offeror• Review PSC Comment Forms including recommended ENs

– Consolidate, edit, combine, disregard Comments with rationale in Disposition Block of Comment Form

• Accept/Finalize Draft Assessments• Accept/Finalize Draft ENs provided by PSC• Ensure that draft briefing “bullets” are detailed and descriptive of

comments

15

311 HSW

Privatization Support Contractor

(PSC)

16

311 HSW

Support Contractor (PSC)

• Read entire proposal• Evaluate proposals & revisions against solicitation requirements• Comment, as a minimum, on minimum threshold requirements of

proposal and any requirement not covered by Offeror• Complete Comment Forms including recommended ENs

– Consolidate, edit, combine, disregard Comments with rationale in Disposition Block of Comment Form

• Draft Assessments• Draft ENs based, in part, on comments• Prepare detailed draft reports and briefings including descriptive

comments

• Reports evaluation results to AST, SAC & SA (if required)

17

311 HSW

Selection Information

&Procurement Integrity

18

311 HSWSELECTION INFORMATION

• Selection Information (SI) must be handled with the utmost discretion to avoid any compromise

• The cover page, and each page with SI, shall be marked with the following legend:

• “SELECTION INFORMATION”

• PSC contractor/AST Chairs control disclosure of SI during selection and after deal closure

19


AST Chairs are responsible for ensuring each person receiving SI complete and sign an SI Briefing Certificate:

• Each person agrees to safeguard SI

• A current OGE Form 450 must be submitted, if required by DODD 5500.7

• A completed and signed SI Briefing Certificate is required of all attending SA briefings

20


Information, the disclosure of which would jeopardize theintegrity or successful completion of the acquisition

Examples:

• Execution Plan/Competition plan

• Evaluation worksheets, proposal analysis report, attorney’s work papers

• Rankings of offerors

• May be in electronic form, either obtained from the offerors or generated by the government during evaluation

• Extends into the post- award period (protest period)

• Includes talking about what happened during the selection deliberations

21


22

311 HSWPROCUREMENT INTEGRITY

• Prohibition on disclosing procurement information• Agency official knowingly discloses proposal information

• Prohibition on obtaining procurement information• A person shall not knowingly obtain contractor proposal

information before award

• Actions required of agency officials when contacted by offerors regarding employment

• Promptly report in writing to your AST Chair

• And - reject the non-federal employment offer; or

• Disqualify yourself from the procurement

23


• Disqualification Procedures• Individuals who disqualify themselves must

also submit written notice to the HCA or designee with copies to the AST Chair and SA

• Identify the acquisition, the nature of personal and substantial participation and identify the offeror involved

• Disqualified individuals may resume participation when the HCA or designee determines

• The contractor is no longer an offeror• The offer of non-federal employment has been

terminated

24


Violations or Possible Violations• AST Chair & CO have duty to determine if violation has

impact on award or selection• If no, determination is reviewed at higher level• If yes, CO forwards determination and file to HCA

• HCA, or designee, determines if acquisition is affected• May advise the CO to continue procurement, or• Begin an investigation, or • Refer for criminal investigation, or • Determine a Procurement Integrity Act violation and

direct appropriate actions

25


Penalties• Contractual Remedies

• Disqualification of Offeror, • Cancellation of acquisition• Recision of contract, or sanctions on performance• Debarment or suspension of Offeror

• Administrative/Civil Penalties (each violation)• Removal from office or other “appropriate adverse”

personnel action• Fines $100,000 (individual) $1 Million (contractor)

• Criminal Penalties• Imprisonment for not more than 5 years or fine under

18 USC, or both.

These remedies are NOT exclusive

26

311 HSW

Planning and Preparation

27

311 HSWPlanning and Preparation

Read the Competition Plan (CP) and Selection Evaluation Criteria

Read key RFP documents . . . . . Read Section 3 - Project Arrangements,

Requirements, and Management Air Force’s minimum project requirements

Read Section 4 - Instructions to Offerors Review proposal structure table

Study Section 5 - Evaluation Factors Understand minimum threshold requirements Understand how Desired/Enhanced criteria relate to

evaluation process Understand RFP/Proposal/Real Estate Transaction

Linkage

28

311 HSW

Planning and Preparation

• Before PSC/AST Team opens proposals, recommend:

– Team discussion of Section 5 criteria and parts of the proposal that will be reviewed for each criteria

– Proposal parts: narrative, drawings, plans, appendices, etc.

29

311 HSW

BREAKTIME

30

311 HSW

Evaluations/Ratings

31

311 HSW

Evaluations

• Avoid bias for/against any Offeror • Everything must be traceable to the RFP (Sects. 3, 4 & 5)• Evaluate only the proposal information, not extraneous or

supplemental information• Be objective -- evaluate proposal on the basis of what we asked

for, not what we would like to see• Be thorough -- a proposal must directly reflect fulfillment of all

solicitation requirements• Document, document -- all observations and perceptions you see

relating to the proposal• PSC/AST must ensure comprehensive audit trail• Ensure consistency across Offerors

32

311 HSW

EXCEPTIONALEXCEPTIONALEXCEEDS specified minimum performance

or capability REQUIREMENTS in a way BENEFICIAL to the Air Force

PROPOSAL RISKH MM M LL

PAST PERFORMANCE

CONFIDENCEHC C C SC C C

PRICE OR COST$ PRICE / $ PC

MISSION CAPABILITY

G GR Y YB

MEETS specified minimum performance or capability REQUIREMENTS necessary for

acceptable contract performance

ACCEPTABLEACCEPTABLE

• No Deficiencies• May have Strength(s) insufficient to justify “Blue”

• No Deficiencies • “Blue” driven by degree of benefit to Govt• One or more Strengths (one may not be enough)

RATINGS

33

311 HSW

• No deficiencies• One or more proposal inadequacies drives yellow rating

– Proposal Inadequacy = An aspect or omission … that may contribute to a failure in meeting specified minimum performance or capability requirements.

• Discussions should resolve most (if not all) Yellows • Contract is “awardable” with yellow rating

MARGINALMARGINAL

DOES NOT CLEARLY MEET some specified minimum performance or capability REQUIREMENTS, but any proposal

inadequacies are correctable

PROPOSAL RISKH MM M LL

PAST PERFORMANCE

CONFIDENCEHC C C SC C C

PRICE OR COST$ PRICE / $ PC

MISSION CAPABILITY

G GR Y YB

FAILS TO MEET specified minimum performance or capability REQUIREMENTS. Proposals

with an unacceptable rating are NOT AWARDABLE

UNACCEPTABLEUNACCEPTABLE

• Deficiency -- fails to meet one or more requirements• Degree of failure: Egregious to very minor; described in narrative

RATINGS

34

311 HSW

RFP Requirement

BASELINE REQUIREMENTS

The required threshold performance requirements stated below establish the minimum capability an Offeror’s proposal must meet to be judged acceptable. Any capabilities proposed that exceed these requirements will be considered in the Best Value determination.

35

311 HSW

Generate Initial Ratings

General Notes: – If approach to meet a requirement is too unclear to

evaluate for impact to cost, schedule, or performance, it is likely a Proposal Inadequacy (PI)

– If the Offeror does not exhibit clear understanding of a requirement, it may be a proposal inadequacy.

– If any Proposal Inadequacy (PI) is un-resolvable, it may become a deficiency

– If requirement is not met, it is likely a Deficiency

Here we would generate a proposed EN and rate YELLOW or RED and the rating would roll-up

36

311 HSW

Exchanges/ClarificationsDiscussions

37

311 HSWExchanges

• “Exchanges” is a term describing the transfer of information between the PSC/Gov’t and Offerors

– Before receipt of proposals - information gathering– After receipt of proposals: Clarifications, Communications, and

Discussions/Negotiations

Limitations on Exchanges

• PSC/Govt personnel shall NOT engage in conduct that:– favors one offeror over another– reveals one offeror’s sensitive info to another offeror– reveals an offeror’s price w/o offeror permission– reveals names of persons providing past performance info– knowingly discloses sensitive selection information

38

311 HSW

Clarifications

• Limited exchanges, between the PSC/govt and offerors, that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated.

• If award without discussions is possible, offerors may clarify– Relevance of past performance info– Adverse past performance not previously rebutted– Resolve minor or clerical errors

• RFP must provide for award w/o discussion

Communications• Exchanges between the PSC/govt and offerors after receipt of proposals

that leads to establishment of the competitive range• Occurs before establishment of competitive range• Resolves question of whether the offeror is IN or OUT of the competitive

range

39

311 HSW

Discussions / Negotiations

• Exchanges between the PSC/govt and offerors with intent of allowing offeror to revise its proposal.

• Take place after establishment of the competitive range• Tailored to each offeror’s proposal• Conducted by the CO with PSC/AST with each offeror in

the competitive range

40

311 HSW

Decisions &

Debriefings

41

311 HSWDecision Phase

• Complete Draft PAR – Coordinate based on AST/SAC recommendations– Present at end of briefing if SA agrees with recommendations in

decision briefing– If SA does not agree, take action to update PAR and provide to SA

• Draft SDD and coordinate – Present at end of briefing if SA agrees with recommendations in

decision briefing– If SA does not agree, take action to update SDD and provide to SA– Complete SDD, as appropriate

• Normal notifications:– Congress notified of successful offerors(s)– SA calls offerors soon after decision/Congressional notification– PCO confirms decision in writing

42

311 HSW

Debriefings

43

311 HSWDebriefings

• Before award• Offerors excluded from Step two competition• Post-award

– Both successful and unsuccessful offerors • CO with SA or AST Chair should lead debriefing delegation• Use the Charts From the SA Decision Briefing

– Show each Offeror his Strengths/Deficiencies/Weaknesses – If show strengths/deficiencies/weaknesses of successful offeror, get

concurrence from winner to ensure no transfer of proprietary information • Do not allow extensive discussion (arguments)• Having evaluation data base during debrief has avoided protests

– Detailed audit trail can be used to show offeror specific comments• Some contractors will be emotional about losing--be prepared!• Don’t mention Winner’s attributes if not on charts• Avoid comparing proposals!

44

311 HSWSUMMARY

• PSC contractor is evaluating & recommending• AST is providing “Inherently Governmental” functions

within the PSC selection process– approving evaluation level decisions (e.g. assigning ratings)– advice to PSC evaluators– recommends/approves release of evaluation notices– recommendations to AF decision makers

• Evaluation must follow the approved Competition

Plan/RFP• Procurement Integrity applies to all parties

45

311 HSW

SUMMARY

• THINK!• Comments are the Foundation!• RFP (Section 5) is the only criteria• Document the Audit Trail in the evaluation

documents• Follow the Process!

– Courts support teams that follow their documented process– So read and understand the CP & Evaluation process

46

311 HSW

QUESTIONS???

acquisition support team training

Technology