sin: 0808lp1026454...air-2.0 5 sep 03 navair instruction 4200.39b from: commander, naval air systems...

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVALAIR SYSTEMS COMkUND

R4DMWILLUMA. MOFF€ITBUlLDlNG 47123 EUSE ROAD, BLDG 2272

PATUXEKT RWER. MYLAND 2 0 6 7 a i w L M l r r m m

NAVAIRINST 4200.39B AIR-2.0 5 Sep 03

NAVAIR INSTRUCTION 4200.39B

From: Commander, Naval Air Systems Command

Subj: PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES FOR COMPETITIVE SOURCE SELECTION

Ref (a) FAR 15.3 (b) DoDD 5000.1 (c) DoDI 5OOO.2 (d) NAPS 5215.303 (e) NAVAIRINST 4200.36

(1) Source Selection Organization and Roles and Responsibilities (2) Steps in the Source Selection Process (3) Administrative Procedures (4) Rating and Risk Definitions (5) Sample Certificate of Nondisclosure and Financial Interest

Encl:

1 . Pumose. This instruction outlines regulatory requirements for conducting competitively negotiated source selections pursuant to reference (a) and articulates a common set of principles and procedures for conducting such acquisitions.

2. Cancellation. This instruction supersedes NAVAIR Instruction 4200.39A of 22 July 1999 and Change 1 of 14 March 2000. As this is a major revision, changes are not indicated.

3. Scope. This applies to all competitive negotiated acquisitions, except those using simplified acquisition procedures (FAR Part 13). General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedules (FAR Part 8). or broad agency announcements (FAR 35.016). executed by the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), its Business Units (BUS), and its supporting naval aviation Program Executive Officers (PEOs).

4. Backmound. A Source Selection Policy Board (SSPB) was chartered in March 1995 to obtain consistency in NAVAIR's source selection process. 'This objective became even more imperative with the 1 October 1995 Head of Contracting Activity (HCA) realignment making Commander, Naval Air Systems (AIR-00) the HCA for the Naval Air Warfare Centers (NAVAIRWARCENs). The Acquisition Oversight Council (AOC) is NAVAIR's principal body for oversight of acquisition policy and processes. In January 2003, the AOC assumed the responsibilities and functions of the SSPB. recognizing that the source selection process is a major part of the NAVAIR acquisition process.

SIN: 0808LP1026454

NAVAIRINST 4200.39B 5 Sep 03

5. PrinciDles and Policy

a. General. The same essential functions need to be performed for all competitive source selections regardless of dollar value, technical complexity and/or visibility. These essential functions are to assess how well each proposal meets solicitation requirements; to compare proposals meeting solicitation requirements to one another to determine which represents the best value to the Government, and to select a source and document the selection in a source selection decision document containing a detailed narrative with the rationale for the award determination. This instruction sets forth a single, scalable NAVAIR source selection process to accomplish these essential functions.

b. Source Selection Classification Levels (SSCL). The Source Selection Organization (SSO) that is established for a particular acquisition may vary considerably in depth and structure. The primary factors that impact the breadth of a SSO are the complexity of the requirement and the dollar value of the acquisition. As a general rule, for larger and more complex acquisitions, a senior official (Flagsenior Executive Service (SES) level) will be designated as the Source Selection Authority (SSA). The levels of the Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) and the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) also reflect the acquisition category (ACAT), size and/or complexity of the acquisition. The chart below depicts three SSCLs, with the primary difference being the seniority of the SSA. Each SSCL has an associated SSO of descending size and complexity with SSCL-A having the largest associated team and SSCL-C having the smallest. Consistent with Department of Defense (Don) policy on acquisition streamlining as established in references (b) and (c), delegation of SSA responsibility, when permitted, is strongly encouraged. Enclosure (1) provides a detailed description of the functions of the various levels in the SSCL structure.

NAVAIR SINGLE SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS CHART

ACAT I SSA is non- dclceablc: ACAT I A and 11

Program Considerations for Flag/SES. Olhcr pr0gm.s Approprialc for Non-SSCL-A or SSCL-B k A is delegable to

pro- programs. Determining SSCL whose cornplcxity/viribility ACAT I, I& and 11. warrants a SSA other than

the Contracting Officer (BE dctcmined by AIUM),

PEOs, AIR-1.0 or AIR-2.0)

2


c. Discussion of SSCL Levels

(1) SSCL-A. This level uses a SSAC in its source selection organization and will often have a SSA who is not a contracting officer as otherwise required per FAR 15.303. This level typically applies to Acquisition Category (ACAT) I, IA and I1 acquisitions and is also appropriate, in limited case-by-case instances, for acquisitions whose complexity andor visibility are of sufiicient magnitude to warrant designating a SSA other than a contracting officer per reference (d).

(2) SSCL-B. This level is appropriate for use on all programs other than ACAT I and 11. This SSCL structure uses a SSAC and has a SSA who is a contracting officer as required by F A R 15.303.

(3) SSCL-C. This level does not have an SSAC in its organizational structure. It continues to employ a SSA who is a contracting officer as required by FAR 15.303. The rationale for not establishing a separate SSAC body is because the complexity andor visibility of the particular acquisition does not warrant either additional oversight or use of additional resources.

d. Selection of SSCL level. As established by reference (c), Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) by regulation andor specific direction determines the ACAT level of a program, which in turn is a determining factor of the SSCL. The Acquisition Plan (AF’) approving official, as set forth in reference (e), or the Business Clearance approving official when an AP is not required, will determine the SSCL that applies for a particular acquisition.

e. Source Selection Decision Methodologies

(1) Best Value. “Best Value” means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the solicitation. Best Value employs a tradeoff process that permits award to other than the lowest priced offeror or the highest technically rated offeror. Best Value is the preferred source selection methodology for acquisitions covered by this instruction. The tradeoff process associated with Best Value involves a comparative weighing of the evaluation factors andor subfactors identified in the solicitation. Specifically, the trade-off process involves selecting the most advantageous offer based on an integrated assessment of both non-cost/price factordsubfactors (e.g., technical, management, past performance, etc.) and costlprice factordsubfactors, taking into consideration their assigned relative importance. The rationale for a tradeoff requires documentation and consistency with the stated evaluation factors. The tradeoff process facilitates the ideal source selection outcome for high risk orpore complex acquisitions such as when a high level of technical capability or specialized experience is desirable.

(2) Low Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA). The LPTA process may be used for non-complex, low-risk, clearly defmed or routine requirements. For example, use of the LPTA approach may be appropriate for acquisition of unmodified commercial equipment or equipment with detailed specifications that have routinely been procured with no significant post-award technical issues. As a general rule, the LPTA approach is not appropriate for acquisition of design or development efforts, software integration, or professional services. Use of this

3


approach should be minimized as it considers only codprice, past performance (if appropriate), and technical acceptability, and does not allow award to a higher priced qualified offeror even if that offeror’s proposal is more advantageous to the Government.

f. Source Selection Evaluation FactodCriteria. The SSA must approve the source selection evaluation factodcriteria before release of the final Request for Proposal (RFP). Such approval is typically obtained via approval of the Source Selection Plan (SSP) for the particular procurement. It is essential that the factordcriteria laid out in the SSP exactly match the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP. Variation from the procedures set forth below (e.g., use of Level of Confidence Ratings) may be approved by the SSA for SSCL-A or by the Contracts (AIR-2.0) department head or chief of the contracting ofice for SSCL-B or SSCL-C.

(1) The proposal insrnctions (contained in Section L of a solicitation) define the form and substance of the information offerors are required to submit in response to an RFP. The evaluation factordcriteria (contained in Section M of a solicitation) articulate the parameters the Government may use to evaluate proposals as well as the relative importance placed on the proposal requirements. As such, well written proposal instructions and evaluation factordcriteria are critical to the timely and efficient success of a competitive source selection. Advance planning in the development of these sections of the RFP by all stakeholders in the source selection is therefore essential.

(2) Evaluation factodcriteria should be kept to a minimum and should focus on source selection discriminators. As required by FAR 15.101 -1, when using Best Value (trade-off methodology), all evaluation factors and significant subfactors affecting contract award, including heir relative importance, shall be clearly stated in the solicitation. Also, the solicitation must state whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price when combined are significantly more important, approximately equal, or significantly less important than cost or price. When using the LPTA approach, the solicitation shall provide the evaluation factors and significant subfactors that establish the requirements of acceptability. Since the LPTA methodology prohibits trade-offs, all evaluation factors and subfactors are equally important. Proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-cost/price factors. Therefore, the rating and risk definitions contained in enclosure (4) do not apply to LPTA evaluations.

(3) Evaluation factodcriteria can be categorized as qualitative (e.g., technical and logistic support), performance risk ( e g , past performance and experience), and cost/price, as discussed below.

(a) Oualitative Assessment. Qualitative factors relate to how the offeror proposes to meet the RFP requirements. Examples of qualitative factors include: technical, logistics support and management. Two evaluation measures will be used to assess qualitative factors: a proposal rating (outstanding, highly satisfactory, satisfactory, marginal and unsatisfactory) and a proposal risk (low, medium, high). The proposal rating evaluation measures the merits of the offeror’s proposed approach against the RFP requirements. The proposal risk evaluation assesses potential disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation in performance associated with the proposed approach as well as an offeror’s ability to execute the proposed approach. This includes assessing the suitability of the manufacturing approach, sufficiency of proposed labor

4


mix and hours, subcontracting arrangements, etc. See enclosure (4) for the required definitions of the respective proposal rating and proposal risk terminology. As a general rule, an RFP shall state that the proposal rating and the associated proposal risk are of equal importance. In unusual circumstances, the proposal rating and proposal risk may be weighted differently but this must be fully documented and explained in the SSP. A proposal rating and a proposal risk assessment shall both be performed for each qualitative factorhb-factor identified in the RFP. Such assessments shall be supported by detailed written narratives identifying, as appropriate, proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies. Narrative assessments require a factual basis, consistent with the evaluation factodsubfactors and will promote reasoned and well documented source selection decisions.

(b) Performance Risk Assessment. Performance risk assessments (e.g., past performance and experience) evaluate the likelihood that the offeror will successfully complete the solicitation requirements based on previous demonstrated relevant performance (e.g., similar type, size, and complexity contracts as well as trend analysis of contractor performance). This type evaluation factor seeks to identify the degree of risk associated with each offeror’s likelihood of success. In conducting a performance risk assessment, evaluators must use information external to the proposal, e.g., the offeror’s recent and relevant past performance history obtained from procuring and contract administration offices, Government databases etc. One currently available and approved database is the Past Performance Information Retrieval System.

- 1. Evaluation of past performance is required for competitively negotiated procurements, except as provided by FAR 15.304(~)(3). This evaluation is separate and distinct from the responsibility determination required by FAR Part 9. Past performance shall be a separate evaluation factor in source selections covered by this instruction and shall be evaluated using the risk definitions set forth in enclosure (4). When proposals are received from contractor entities (e.g., teams, joint ventures, limited liability corporations) specifically formed to propose on a particular acquisition, the past performance evaluation shall consider each individual team member.

2. When experience is used as an evaluation factor, it does not always fit easily into the qualitative factorhsk assessment framework. Experience reflects whether contractors have performed similar work before. Past performance, on the other hand, describes how well contractors performed the work. Experience may be either a standalone factor using performance risk or embedded in a qualitative factor/subfactor using proposal rating and proposal risk. When a risk assessment approach is chosen to evaluate experience, it shall not be a sub-factor of past performance. The enclosure (4) standard,rating definitions includes a risk assessment definition for experience, but this does not require use of experience as an evaluation factor or as part of the risk assessment. Experience as an evaluation factor is purely discretionary and does not obviate regulatory requirements related to past performance.

5


(c) Price Analwidcost Realism Evaluations

- 1. Per FAR 15.402, contracting officers must purchase supplies and services from responsible sources at fair and reasonable prices but in establishing the reasonableness of the offered prices, the contracting officer must not obtain more information than is necessary. There are two types of analysis that may be conducted: price comparisodanalysis; andor cost realism analysis. Price analysis is the process of examining and evaluating a proposed price to determine if it is fair and reasonable without evaluating its separate cost elements and proposed profit. Price analysis always involves some form of comparison with other prices. Cost realism analysis is the independent review and evaluation of specific elements of each offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the proposed costs are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear and complete understanding of the requirements and are consistent with the offeror’s proposed technical approach.

2. Generally, competition establishes price reasonableness. Therefore, when contracting on a firm-fixed-price or fixed-price with economic price adjustment basis, a price comparisodanalysis of proposed prices will usually satisfy the requirements of FAR 15.402 and thereby provide sufficient support for a best value determination. In those instances, a cost realism analysis need not be performed. While it may be permissible in limited situations to conduct a cost realism analysis in the evaluation of a competitive fixed price effort, per FAR 15.402, only the minimum cost information necessary to determine that a proposed price is fair and reasonable may be obtained. (See also FAR 15.404 for fiuther guidance on when cost realism analysis may be performed on competitive fixed price efforts).

- 3. Cost realism analysis is required for all cost reimbursement type contracts to determine the most probable cost of performance for each offeror. As such, when contracting on a cost-reimbursement basis, evaluations shall include a cost realism analysis to determine what the Government should realistically expect to pay for the proposed effort, the offeror’s understanding of the work, and the offeror’s ability to perform the contract.

g. Comparative AssessmenWomDetitive Ranne/Award on Initial Offers. At the conclusion of the above described evaluation process, a decision is made regarding whether to conduct discussions or to award on initial offers. Generally, solicitations should provide for award without discussions. If discussions are to be conducted, a competitive range consisting of the most highly rated offers is established.

h. Source Selection Decision. The SSA’s decision shall be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation. Although the SSA may use reports and analyses prepared by others, the source selection decision shall represent the SSA’s independent judgment. The SSA’s decision shall be documented and the documentation shall include the rationale for any business judgments and tradeoffs, including costs, made or relied on by the SSA.

6. Procedures. Enclosures (1) through (5) address the overall source selection organization, roles and responsibilities, steps in the selection process, administrative procedures, rating and risk definitions and non-disclosure/financial interest certification to use when conducting

6

NAVAIIUNST 4200.39B 5 Sep 03

competitively negotiated source selection. Lessons learned should be documented so future acquisitions can benefit.

7. m. Significant data generated pursuant to this instruction will be source selection information as defined at FAR 3.104 and shall be marked accordingly.

8. w. Contracts Policy and Process Management (AIR-2.1 . I ) shall annually review the contents herein and provide recommendations for changes to the Commander.

Rear ADMIRAL, U . S . Navy Commander Acting

Distribution: All NAVAIR Directives can be found on httus://winasoan.navair.naw.mil or httu://directives.navair.naw.mil

7


SOURCE SELECTION ORGANIZATION AND ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES

1. Source Selection Essential Functions and OrEanization. As stated in the basic instruction, the same essential functions need to be. performed for all competitive source selections. The SSOs established for particular acquisitions to execute these essential functions may vary considerably in their depth and structure. The primary factors impacting the breadth of a SSO are the dollar value, complexity, and visibility of the acquisition. These factors will determine the seniority of the SSA. i t . , the more senior the SSA the larger the source selection organization tends to become and the more likely it is that senior personnel will populate the source selection organization. While use of a SSAC is always optional at the discretion of the SSA. source selections will generally employ a common hierarchal structure as follows:

SSA

I SSAC (Source Selection Advisory Council) I 1 SSEB (Source Selection Evaluation Board) 1

I

I

I 1 EvaluationTearns 1

Twical mem berr...,, for the SSO for each respective SSCL is depicted in the 1 _ _ - . . LIR Single Source Selection Chart at paragraph 5@) of the basic instruction and is discussed below.

a. SSCLA

(1) m. AIR-1.0 (delegated by AIR-OO unless otherwise stated) and the PEOs are the SSA for their respective ACAT I, ACAT JA and ACAT I1 programs unless otherwise specified by USD(AT&L). Assistant Secretary of Defense (ASD)(C31)), Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) or Assistant Secretary of the Navy Research Development Acquisition (ASN(RD&A)). Source selection authority for ACAT Il may be delegated to a Flag/SES level person. For all other programs, SSCL-A is used only in exceptional cases.

(2) m. Typical membership is presented in Table I. The SSAC Chair is normally AIR-1.0 or Deputy Acquisition Executive (AIR-1.OA).

Enclosure ( 1 )

NAVAIRINST 4200.398 5 Sep 03

TABLE I I NOTIONAL SSAC MEMBERSHIP FOR SSCL-A

1. CHAIR I 2. MEMBER

3. MEMBER

4. MEMBER

NAVAIR Acquisition Executive or Deputy Acquisition Executive (AIR-I .O)

Assistant Commander for Contracts, Deputy Asst. Commander, or SES Department Head (AIR-2.0)

Assistant Commander, or Deputy Assistant Commandel for Logistics (AIR-3.0) (As appropriate)

Research and Engineering (AIR4.0) (Assistant Commander, or Executive Director)

5 . MEMBER

6. COUNSEL (Advisor)

7. COMPTROLLER (Advisor)

Others as assigned (e.g., customer, stakeholder)

Counsel (AIR-I 1 .O) (Counsel or Deputy Counsel)

Comptroller (AIR-10.0) (Comptroller or Deputy Comptroller)

Program Manager or Representative Source Selection Office (AIR4.1 OE) SSEB Chair Small Business and Industry Liaison (AIR-2.0D) Cost Department (AIR4.2) Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV) Requirements Officer Others as assigned

Provided by Progry Manager (PM)

8. OTHER ADVISORS (as appropriate)

9. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT I (3) m. Typical membership is presented in Table 11. The SSEB Chair within this level

should be someone with the requisite knowledge and experience in the acquisition process as determined by the SSA, i.e., AIR-4.10E or as otherwise designated by the SSA.

Enclosure (1) 2

NAVAIRrNST 4200.39B 5 Sep 03

TABLE I1

NOTIONAL SSEB MEMBERSHIP FOR SSCL-A

1. CHAIR

2. MEMBER

3. MEMBER (Technical Team Leader)

6. MEMBER (Cost Team Leader)

5 . MEMBER (ILS Team Leader)

6. MEMBER (Past Performance Team Leader)

7. MEMBER (Other Factor, e.g., Experience, ream Leader)

k. COUNSEL

9. ADVISORS

Source Selection Office (AIR-4.1 OE) or as otherwise designated by the SSA

PCO

Assistant Program Manager (Systems & Engineering) (APM(S&E)); Cognizant Technical Engineer

Cost Department (AIR-4.2C)llntegrated Program Team (IF'T) Representative

Assistant Program Manager Logistics (APML) or Representative

Deputy Program Manager or Representative

Deputy Program Manager or Representative

Assigned Counsel (AIR-I 1 .O)

AIR4.10E' PM or Representative Others as assigned

From PM or PCO 10. SOURCE SELECTION SECURITY OFFICER

*If not designated SSEB Chair.

b. SSCL-B

(1) w. AIR-2.0 Competency Management will select the particular contracting officer (or other individual as deemed appropriate) to be the SSA.

(2) w. The membership of the SSAC should, in general, follow the positions presented in Table I, but at a lower organizational level. The SSAC Chair for any of these programs is designated by the SSA.

3 Enclosure (1)


(3) m. The membership of the SSEB should, in general, follow the positions presented in Table 11, but at a lower organizational level. The SSEB Chair should be someone with knowledge and experience in the acquisition process, typically personnel from the program IPT or the competency originating the requirement.

c. SSCL-c

(1) m. The SSA is a contracting officer whose business clearance authority and warrant authority are at a level that encompasses the dollar value of the acquisition. Although a SSAC is not used at this level, the SSA may use the advice of experts as needed.

(2) m. The membership of the SSEB should, in general, follow the positions presented in Table I1 but at a lower organizational level. The SSEB Chair should be someone with knowledge and experience in the acquisition process, typically personnel from the program IPT or the competency originating the requirement. For the smallest procurements covered by SSCL-C, the SSEB may even be a single individual.

2. Source Selection Organization Roles and Res~onsibilities. The respective roles and responsibilities of each component of the Source Selection Organization are as follows:

source selection decision supported by a narrative description of an independent comparative analysis of all proposals in the competitive range. In fulfilling this function, the SSA has final authority for source selection and will:

a. m. The SSA role is filled by a single individpal whose primary function is to make the

(1) approve the membership of the SSO including the chair and members of the SSAC (if

(2) approve the source selection plan (SSP) before final solicitation release;

(3) approve the final solicitation prior to release to industry;

(4) concur with proposals to be included in the competitive range;

( 5 ) approve and oversee procedures to prevent unauthorized release of source selection

(6) ensure that proposals are evaluated based solely on the factors and subfactors

(7) consider the recommendations of any advisory boards or panels;

(8) select the source or sources whose proposal is the best value to the Government, and,

(9) inform ASN(RD&A) on results of the selection for ACAT I and I1 programs, as appropriate.

b. m. The SSAC is a comprised of senior personnel h m stakeholder organizations relative to a particular procurement and reports directly to the SSA. A Chair of the SSAC shall

applicable) and the Chair and members of the SSEB;

information;

contained in the solicitation;

Enclosure (1) 4


be designated by the SSA. The SSAC Chair is responsible for overall management of the SSAC and acts as the SSAC’s representative to the SSA.

The primary function of the SSAC is to perform a comparative analysis of proposals and

(1) ensure consistent source selection procedures are established and followed;

(2) provide guidance and instructions to the SSEB;

(3) ensure operational requirements are adequately addressed by ensuring performance,

(4) review draft RFPs and provide consultation to the SSAC Chair for release to industry;

(5) review and recommend approval of the SSP by the SSA. In that regard the SSAC

make a source selection recommendation to the SSA. The SSAC will:

availability, support and other requirements are incorporated into the solicitation package;

shall review and recommend to the SSA the evaluation criteria to be established and their relative order of importance;

(6) recommend to the SSA the proposals to be included in the competitive range;

(7) conduct a comparative analysis of the merits of each proposal in the competitive range;

(8) prepare a proposal analysis report reflecting the SSAC’s comparative analysis based on the SSEB’s evaluation report and make a source selection recommendation to the SSA, with supporting rationale, and

(9) if significant disagreement exists as to the SSAC’s source selection recommendation, prepare a minority proposal analysis report and submit to the SSA.

advisors. The SSEB reports directly to the SSAC, or if there is no SSAC, directly to the SSA. The SSEB Chair is responsible for overall management of the SSEB and acts as the SSEB’s representative to the SSAC. The primary function of the SSEB is to conduct and manage the evaluation process by resolving factual inconsistenciedconflicts between evaluation criteria narrative reports and ensuring evaluation definitiodratings are being consistently applied across all criteria. The SSEB shall not perform comparative analysis of proposals or make source selection recommendations unless requested by the SSAC or SSA. The SSEB will:

(2) support the program ofice and PCO in conducting acquisition planning to facilitate the source selection process including interpreting the operational requirements and developing the Statement of WorWObjectives (SOW);

c. -. The SSEB is comprised of the team leads for each evaluation factor, a Chair, and

(3) participate in the development of the solicitation and the SSP;

(4) brief and obtain the concurrence of the SSAC on the contents of the FSP and SSP;

(5) provide source selection evaluation training to the evaluation teams;

5 Enclosure ( I )

NAVAIRPJST 4200.39B 5 Sep 03

(6) prepare a source selection evaluation report for signature by all members of the SSEB

(7) prepare a minority report, if significant disagreement exists, for signature by the dissenting members and submit the report to the SSAC, or if there is no SSAC, to the SSA;

(8) support SSACISSA consideration of the evaluation reports by makiig presentations as requested; and

(9) support the PCO in conducting offeror debriefings.

and submit the report to the SSAC, or if there is no SSAC, to the SSA;

d. Evaluation Teams. The evaluation teams are comprised of individuals with subject matter expertise relative to the evaluation criteria. They report directly to the SSEB. The primmy function of an evaluation team is to assess proposals against solicitations requirement. The evaluation teams will:

(1) review and be intimately familiar with the requirements set forth in the final W P and the approved SSP;

analysis between proposals is prohibited; (2) measure each proposal against the requirements of the solicitation. Comparative

(3) apply the rating definitions contained within the approved SSP; and

(4) make factually supported assessments of the merits of each proposal.

e. Other Key Players in the Source Selection Process

(1) pC0. In addition to any duties assumed by way of membership in the SSO, the PCO shall:

(a) participate in acquisition planning;

(b) prepare, issue and be cognizant of the solicitation;

(c) participate in development of the SSP;

(d) conduct any pre-proposdsolicitation conferences;

(e) designate a security officer who will collect and maintain a file of all nondisclosure agreements and who will be responsible for ensuring that a review of all financial disclosure agreements is conducted by counsel and documented in the contract file;

(f) serve as the focal point for inquiries from actual or prospective offerors;

(g) control all exchanges with offerors;

Q determine the competitive range in coordination with the SSEB, SSAC and SSA;

(i) determine, with the assistance of the cost evaluation team, that the price is fair and reasonable for the proposed contract.

Enclosure (1) 6


6) prepare the necessary business clearance(s), determine contractor responsibility,

(k) conduct offeror debriefings; and

(1) maintain the official contract file.

and award the resulting contract(s);

(2) m. The procurement official who is responsible for a program’s funding, acquisition strategy, overall planning and scheduling, program management, team assignments, and contractor performance assessments. Such procurement officials, who may be a Program Manager Air (PMA) or an individual who is responsible as a project manager for the procurement action (referred to in this document as the (PM)). In addition to any duties assumed by way of membership in the SSO, the PM shall:

requirements document, are approved and stable. establish technical specifications, and develop a SOW, or Statements of Objectives (SOOs);

(a) ensure the program technical requirements, consistent with the cognizant

(b) ensure an executable program exists;

(c) help establish source selection organizations;

(d) allocate the necessary resources (including funding, facilities, and personnel) to

(e) serve as an advisor/member to the SSAC and the SSEB, and

(Q support any post source selection activities, such a debriefings or post-award

(3) AIR-2.0. In addition to any duties assumed by way of membership in the SSO, AIR- 2.0, AIR-2.0 SES Department Heads, or NAVAIRWARCEN Commerical Contracting Officers (CCOs) shall:

support the source selection process;

reviewdmeetings, as required.

(a) provide support and guidance relating to business and contractual issues;

(b) assign a PCO to each program; and

(c) approve the use of non-Governmental personnel at any stage of the source selection process. This includes any use of non-Government personnel from the identification of requirements stage through contract award (except no approval is required for Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) personnel).

(4) AIR 1 1 .O. In addition to any duties assumed by way of membership in the SSO, AIR 1 1 .O shall:

(a) provide legal advice and services regarding form and legality of all solicitation and evaluation documents and contracts per Contracts Competency Instruction (CCI) 4200.43;

7 Enclosure (1)


(b) provide legal advice and services regarding all ethical issues, such as conflicts of interest,

(c) review all financial disclosure documents and provide a memo for the contract file stating that no conflicts exist or if a conflict(s) does exist, documenting steps taken to resolve the conflict(s); and

(d) support post-award activities.

( 5 ) Comizant Technical and/or Loeistics Remesentatives. Military or civilian officials, designated by the PM, with primary responsibility for the technical and/or logistics aspects of a requirement, shall:

(a) develop technical specifications,

(b) participate in development of SOW/SOO, appropriate portions of the proposal instructions and evaluation criteria, and other technical or logistics documentation, as appropriate, and for any requirement-related documents ensure they reflect the approved sponsor requirements document or program related requirements; and

(c) support any post-source selection activities, such as debriefings, as required.

(6) AIR4.10E. In providing source selection support, AIR-4.10E will:

(a) serve as the SSEB Chair for SSCL A, unless another Chair is designated by the SSA:

(b) serve as advisor to the SSEB, SSAC, and/or SSA as requested;

(c) participate in early acquisition planning and source selection planning;

(d) provide training to SSEB members on the source selection process when appropriate and lead as the SSEB Chair or support as an advisor the preparation of the proposal instructions, evaluation criteria, and SSP;

(e) lead Source Selection IPT; and

(0 support the AOC on matters dealing with sour5e selections.

(7) AIR 4.2. In providing cost analysis support, as required, for most SSCL-A source selections, AIR42 shall:

(a) serve as cost advisor to the SSAC (SSCL-A) or, when appropriate, nominate a replacement representative;

Enclosure (1) 8


(b) provide a representative to serve as SSEB Cost Team Leader (when appropriate) and develop cost inputs to the SSP and RFP for evaluation criteria and proposal instructions;

(c) prepare for cost evaluation by developing work plans, planning estimates and establishing documentation procedures; and

(d) perform cost proposal evaluations, present findings to the SSEB and SSAC and document the analysis.

(8) a. Part of the AOC charter is to obtain consistency on NAVAIR source selections. The AOC is chaired by AIR-1.0 and is composed of the PEOs and competency leads. Major changes to NAVAIR source selection policy or procedures shall be approved by the AOC.

(9) Source Selection IPT. The Source Selection IPT develops and implements source selection best practices, policies and procedures on the AOC’s behalf. The IPT membership consists of representatives from AIR-1.0, AIR-2.0, AIR-4.10E, AIR-4.2, AIR-1 1 .O, BUS, and others as appropriate.

9 Enclosure (1)


STEPS IN THE SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

1. Early planning and preparation will ensure a successful and timely competitive acquisition, and enable the Government to select the best source and effectively resolve issues before contract award. Early planning includes finalization of all program requirements; development of technical documentation, acquisition strategy and source selection criteria; and determination of SSO membership. Planning is accomplished by conducting procurement planning, preparing a documented acquisition strategy, preparing a SSP, synopsizing the requirement, and conducting pre-solicitation conferences. A competitive negotiated source selection team process flowchart is depicted in Figure 1.

a. Procurement Planning Conference (PPC). A PPC is an acquisition management team meeting conducted in advance of preparing the Procurement Initiation Document (P1D)IProcurement Request (PR). The PPC will establish the acquisition approach, actions required, milestones, resources, and accountability for a procurement. A Procurement Planning Agreement documents the PPC decisions and should be achieved as early as possible in the planning process. A part of the discussion should include the stability of the requirements that will flow into the various solicitation documents.

b. Acauisition Strategy. The acquisition strategy shall be approved by the program’s milestone decision authority and documented in accordance with policy established in the DoDlSECNAV 5000 series directives. If required, an AP will be prepared and approved in accordance with FAR Part 7.

c. Early Industrv Involvement. Exchanging information on upcoming acquisitions improves industry understanding of Government requirements and Government understanding of industry capabilities. The exchange of information with industry can identify and help resolve issues early in the acquisition process.

d. Synopsis. With few exceptions, the PCO shall publicize the proposed contract action per FAR Subpart 5.2.

e. Draft Solicitation. Use ofdraft solicitations is encouraged, particularly if the requirement is complex or not a follow-on acquisition. The intent of obtaining industry feedback is to improve the quality of solicitations and proposals (see FAR 15.201(c)). Draft solicitations shall contain only necessary and cost-effective requirements; and be defined using commercial, non-developmental, or performance/functional specifications to the maximum extent practicable to encourage competition, innovative technical solutions, and better prices. Draft solicitations shall not contain Sections L and M, unless they have been approved by the SSAC Chair in consultation with the SSAC. Drafts that do not contain Sections L and M may be released at the discretion of the PCO. A legal review will occur prior to submission of a completed draft RFP to the SSAC or SSA.

Enclosure (2)

EstaMish Procurement Develop AcquisiSon MDAlPEO StategypIan Appmval ?

4 Refine RFP document 8 Conduct

Develop Source Pre-Solicitation Seleclion Plan Conference

A

Enter PID in Sigma

Source Selection Plan

Conduct Pre-Proposal Receive Proposals Conference with

Contractor/lndustry

Evaluation

t Receive SSA Selects Source 8

Final Proposal Post-Business Clearance Revisions Approved

- Figure 1 Conduct

Debriefing(s) 2

Enclosure (2)

NAVAIIUNST 4200.39B 5 Sep 03

Industry issues on draftlfinal solicitations will be resolved by the PCO as follows:

(1) adopted suggestions may result in solicitation changes and must be provided to all prospective offerors,

(2) answers to questions shall be provided to all prospective offerors unless the mswer would result in compromising a company’s competitiveness.

f. Pre-Solicitation Conference. Pre-solicitation conferences are held to facilitate Govemmenthdustry communication and promote a better understanding of the Government’s requirements. (FAR 15.201(~)(8).

g. Ssp. A SSP, prepared for each competition, identifies SSO membership, establishes the members’ roles and responsibilities, and sets forth objectives, evaluation criteria, factors and appropriate subfactors, strategy, procedures, ratings and risk definitions, and schedules. Table 111 depicts an SSP outline.

TABLE 111

Outline for SamDlc Source Selection Plan

- No. - Section

SSP Approval References Foreword

Background - includes program background and acquisition strategy

Objectives - includes statement of general and specific objectives

Schedule - provides major milestones

SSA - identifies SSA and denotes responsibilities

S A C , if applicable - list functional composition and responsibilities

SSEB - identifies Evaluation Factor Team members and responsibilities

PM - identifies PM and denotes function and responsibilities

PCO - identifies PCO and denotes function and responsibilities

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

AmendiCes

A. SSA Designation E. Source Selection Process (includes security, negotiations and contract award documentation)

B. SSAC Membership, if applicable 1. Certificate of Non-Disclosure and

Financial Interest C. SSEB Membership

D. Evaluation Criteria F. Check-Off List

3 Enclosure (2)


h. Solicitation. Before a final solicitation is issued, the acquisition strategy and the SSP must be approved, adequate funding identified, and all sections of the solicitation should be correlated to ensure no conflicts exist. The source selection evaluation criteria must be identical in both the SSP and Section M of the solicitation. SSEB if there is no SSAC) meeting to review a final solicitation, the solicitation must be distributed to each member of the SSAC (or SSEB if there is no SSAC) for review. Once the solicitation is issued, all proposed solicitation changes must be reviewed by the SSEB Chair prior to release. Substantive changes to the solicitation must be approved by the SSA for SSCL- A and B, and the PCO for SSCL-C. FAR 12.603 provides for streamlined solicitation procedures for commercial items and allows the solicitation to be made a part of the synopsis.

i. Pre-ProDod Conference. Pre-Proposal Conferences are encouraged to facilitate

Generally, before convening the SSAC (or

Governmentlindustry communication, improve understanding of the Government's requirements and create a forum to address contractor concerns and questions. Conferences are held after issuance of the solicitation (FAR 15.201(~)(8)).

j. Award on Initial Offers. FAR 15.209 permits contract award on the basis of initial offers without written or oral discussions. The intent to award on initial offers must be made clear in the solicitation. The winning proposal must have no deficiencies or significant exceptions to the terms and conditions of the solicitation. Clarifications may take place even when award on initial offers is contemplated. Clarifications are limited exchanges, between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. If award will be made without conducting discussions, offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals (e.g., the relevance of an offeror's past performance information and adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors. Clarifications may never result in a revised proposal (however, this does not mean they will not be documented, just that they may never give rise to a change in the offeror's proposed approach to satisfying Government requirements).

k. Communications with Offerors Before Establishment of the Competitive Range. Communications are exchanges, between the Government and offerors after receipt of proposals, leading to the establishment of the competitive range. If a competitive range is to be established, communications are limited to circumstances where a) past performance information is the determining factor preventing an offeror from being placed in the competitive range and shall be limited to adverse past performance to which an offeror has not had an opportunity to respond; and b) communications may only be held with those offeroqwhose inclusion in or exclusion from the competitive range is uncertain.

1. Determination of Competitive Range

(1) When award on initial offers is not possible, the SSAC (SSEB if there is no SSAC) will assist the PCO in determining the competitive range following an evaluation of the cost!price and technical proposals. Concurrence must be obtained from the SSA.

Enclosure (2) 4


For SSCL-A and B procedure, when the PCO determines that all offerors should be in the competitive range, concurrence must be obtained from the SSAC Chair in consultation with the SSAC. SSA concurrence is not required.

(2) The competitive range shall be comprised of all the most highly rated proposals, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR15.306(~)(2). Offerors whose proposals are determined to be outside the competitive range will be notified following the procedures of FAR 15.503. If the contracting officer, after consulting with the SSAC Chair (SSEB Chair if there is no SSAC) and obtaining SSA concurrence, determines that a proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal shall be eliminated from consideration for award (FAR 15.306(~)(3)). Discussions with other offerors need not have been completed.

m. Site Survevs. Site surveys may be conducted, with SSAC Chair (SSEB Chair if there is no SSAC) approval, during the evaluation process or following a competitive range determination, to obtain information concerning an offeror’s proposed abilities which may be available only at an offeror’s facilities. A PCO or contract specialist must be present at the site survey to ensure the integrity of the process. If the site survey is conducted prior to the determination of the competitive range, the survey must not involve discussions and must not allow the offeror to revise its proposal. Surveys conducted following a competitive range determination should normally be made to all offerors within the competitive range.

n. Pre-Neaotiation Business Clearance. A pre-negotiation business clearance will be prepared and approved prior to conducting discussions for competitive acquisitions, and will document the competitive range determination per NAPS 521 5.406(90)@). The clearance shall include a copy of relevant portions of sections L and M of the solicitation and the SSP.

0. Discussions. The PCO, with support from appropriate SSEB members and evaluators, will conduct discussions to advise offerors of significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and other aspects of their proposal (such as cost/price, technical, past performance and terms and conditions) that could, in the opinion of the contracting ofticer, be altered or explained to enhance materially the proposal’s potential for award. If, after discussions have begunj an offeror originally in the competitive range is no longer considered to be among the most highly rated offerors being considered for award, that offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range whether or not all material aspects of the proposal have been discussed, or whether or not the offeror has been afforded an opportunity to submit a proposal revision. Discussions may be written or oral. For oral discussions, the PCO will determine the support required from the SSEB and evaluation team members. Content of discussions is determined by the PCO and SSEB Chair, based on the particular facts of each offer. The PCO and other Governmept personnel involved shall not engage in conduct which favors one offeror over another, reveals to one offeror mother offeror’s technical solution or price, reveals names of individuals providing past performance information, or knowingly furnishes source selection information in violation of FAR 3.104.

p. Reauest For Final Proposal Revisions. The request for final proposal revisions is the final closing of discussions with all offerors within the competitive range (FAR 15.307(b)). At the conclusion of discussions, all issues shall have been addressed and responded to by the offerors (except as provided for under FAR 15.306(d)(4)), changes to the solicitation resulting from the discussions shall have been provided to and discussed with all offerors remaining in the competitive range and a common cut-off date for the receipt of final revisions to proposals shall

5 Enclosure (2)

NAVAIRINST 4200.39B 5 Sep 03 have been established. Upon determination by the SSA in consultation with the SSAC (SSEB Chair if there is no SSAC) to proceed, a request for final proposal revisions will be issued to all offerors remaining in the competitive range. AAer final proposal revisions have been received, a fmal evaluation will be performed.

q. Evaluation Documentation

(1) Evaluation Report. AAer all offers have been evaluated, the SSEB and/or the various evaluation factor teams will prepare reports documenting specific findings and conclusions, and brief the results to the SSAC (SSA if there is no SSAC). Reports will contain an assessment of each proposal addressing all evaluation areas. Reports should be generated prior to a determination of competitive range and modified after discussions, if required. A qualitative narrative including strengths and weaknesses and appropriate quantitative data should be presented in sufficient detail to support the conclusions, particularly when non-costlprice benefits or advantages are used as a basis for selection. The SSAC may provide a different assessment of the offers to the SSA than that provided by the evaluation report(s), and the SSA may accept or reject the recommendations of the reporting group. For SSCL-C, the reports will be coordinated with the PCO prior to the SSEB meeting. The SSA may attend any evaluation briefing.

(2) Proposal Analvsis Reoort. The SSAC will generate a written summary to the SSA of its recommendations in a proposal analysis report that provides a record of the SSEB findings and the SSAC’s comparative analysis of proposals and recommendations.

(3) SSA Decision Memorandum. The source selection decision will be documented in a memorandum signed by the SSA that includes the rationale for any business judgments and tradeoffs made or relied on, including benefits associated with additional costs. Although the rationale for the selection decision must be documented, the SSA decision memorandum need not quantify the tradeoffs that led to the decision.

r. Selecting a Source. Under the best value source selection approach, proposals are compared on the basis of their strengths and weaknesses. The SSAC considers the results of the evaluation and makes a recommendation to the SSA. Based onreasoned judgment, the SSA will select the most advantageous proposal (i.e., best value) that

(1) may not be the lowest cost/price, but possess benefitdadvantages worth a price premium or higher costs;

(2) may be the lowest pricedcost when no other higher pricedcost proposal possesses benefits worth the price premiums; or

(3) may be the lowest pricedcost among essentially equal proposals.

s. Post-Business Clearance. Upon selection of a source(s) by the SSA and prior to announcement of the award of the contract(s), unless previously waived, a post-business clearance will be prepared by the PCO, incorporating the SSAC proposal analysis report or equivalent if there is no SSAC, and approved by the appropriate business clearance approval authority. The post-business clearance, and/or its supporting proposal analysis report or minutes, shall document the selection decision, and shall include the rationale for any business judgments and tradeoffs made or relied on by the SSA, including benefits associated with additional costs.

Enclosure (2) 6


Although the rationale for the selection decision must be documented, the documentation need not quantify the tradeoffs that led to the decision.

t. Contract Award. An award will be executed expeditiously by the PCO, once the SSA has selected the source($ for award, all approvals have been obtained, documentation prepared, and outstanding issues resolved. The offeror's proposal, or portions thereof, may be incorporated into the contract. Proposal incorporation should only be considered when the technical approach and terms and conditions will constitute the Government's requirements. Expeditious announcement of the award will be made per NAPS 5205.303. Notifications to unsuccessful offerors will be made following FAR 15.503.

u. Debriefing

(1) Pre-award debriefing. Offerors excluded from the competitive range or otherwise excluded from the competition before award may request a debriefing before award. (See FAR 15.505). A pre-award debriefing may be deferred if, for compelling reasons, it is not in the Government's best interest to conduct a debriefing at that time. The rationale for delaying the debriefing must be documented in the contract file.

(2).Post A w d Debriefing. After award, offerors may submit a written request for a debriefing on the results of the evaluation of their proposal as prescribed in FAR 15.506. AIR- 2.0 Policy and Procedures Memorandum 175, Competitive Awards Debriefing Guide, provides guidancehest practices on conducting debriefings.

7 Enclosure (2)


ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

1. Source Selection Security

a. Reauirements. Security of competition sensitive information must be maintained throughout the competitive process, from the pre-draft solicitation phase through the post award phase, to prevent disclosure of information jeopardizing the integrity or successful completion of a procurement. Procedures to ensure security will be established and implemented for each source selection. Exceptions to any of the security procedures must be approved by the SSEB Chair, or PCO for SSCL-C procedures. Proposal information and evaluation results shall be safeguarded to maintain the integrity of the evaluation process.

b. Handling of Documentation. Proposal and evaluation material will be handled consistent with source selection information. If the material is classified at a Confidential or higher level, use of the internal mailhouting systems or electronic mail is prohibited. All source selection material must be marked as follows:

"SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 3.104"

Hand carried material must be placed in sealed containers with the additional marking of "Eyes Only".

c. Certifications Required. All who participate in preparing solicitation documents, evaluating proposals, or any activity associated with selecting sources must, prior to their participation, certify their agreement not to disclose sensitive information by completing and signing a Certificate ofNon-disclosure and financial Interest (see enclosure (5) ) . In addition, all who participate personally and substantially through decision or the exercise of significant judgment shall also ensure that a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report (SF-278 or OGE-450) filed within the current fiscal year, or the equivalent form for contractor support personnel, is on file with an ethics counselor (AIR-I 1.0 or the NAVAIR site equivalent). Once proposals have been received, the PCO will request the ethics counselor review source selection team SF 278dOGE-450s vis a vis the prime offerors/proposed subcontractors to ensure there are no conflicting financial interests. This review will be documented by a memo provided to the PCO that there are no actual or potential conflicts of interest. The PCO shall consult with the ethics counselor in situations that raise actual or potential conflicts of interest. An ethics counselor (AIR-1 1 .O or the NAVAIR site equivalent) retains all SF-278dOGE-450~; the PCO retains all nondisclosure certifications. At the conclusion of the procurement, the nondisclosure certifications become part of the Official Competition File. During the evaluation, only designated personnel will be given access to the proposals. Designated personnel will not discuss nor reveal proposal or evaluation results with anyoneexcept other designated evaluation personnel.

d. Disclosure of Information. To reduce the possibility of improperly disclosing sensitive information and to avoid having knowledge of proposal cost improperly influencing evaluations in non-cost areas, bottom-line cost information will not be made available to members of non- costlprice evaluation teams. Exceptions to this policy must be granted by the SSEB Chair or PCO for SSCL-C procedures. Subject to this approval, direct labor hours and direct material and sub-tier costs may be provided by the cost team to other teams for verification by fimctional experts. Any disclosure of such cost information shall be consistent with the principle of not allowing cost information to improperly influence the evaluation in other areas. Disclosure of

Enclosure (3)

NAVAIRMST 4200.39B 5 Sep 03

technical, logistics, management or any other evaluation information to the cost evaluation team is permissible and expected.

e. Exchanges with Offerors. All documentation or inquiries to and from the offerors will be processed only through the PCO, and will be coordinated with the appropriate Team Leaders and the SSEB Chair.

2. Non-Government Personnel. Per FAR 37.204, a written Determination and Findings (D&F) approved by an AIR-2.0 SES Department Head or NAVAIRWARCEN CCO is required to use support contractors in the source selection process; however, use of Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) do not require a D&F. Generally, only Government personnel should be used in source selections; however, use of contractor support personnel may be appropriate under certain extraordinary circumstances. If approval is given to use any non- Government personnel, including those of FFRDCs, adhere to the following guidelines.

a The solicitation must state that non-Government participants will have access to the offerors’ proposals, and that submission of an offer shall constitute consent to the disclosure of proprietary information to all non-Government participants in the source selection. Identity of non-Government corporate entities will be fUmished in the solicitation.

b. All non-Government personnel must sign certificates of non-disclosure and financial interest, or their equivalent documents.

c. The contract for the support contractors must include the Organizational Conflict of Interest (Services) clause, NAVAIR 5252.209-9510 or equivalent. Support contractors used in the selection process will be subject to certain restrictions in performance of their duties. Specifically, they will have no access to the SSP or solicitation sections L and M prior to solicitation release and no involvement in the source selection process without the written approval of the SSAC Chair (SSEB Chair if there is no SSAC). Access to proposals will be limited to the specific areas where contractor support is required. Non-Government participants will not be members of any evaluation council, board, or panel nor will they be voting members of any evaluation team. They may not attend SSAC, SSEB, and evaluation factor team meetings, prepare documents or other materials considered source selection information pursuant to FAR 3.104, or serve in any other capacity without the express approval of the SSEB Chair.

3. Training. Training of evaluators, prior to evaluations, should include pre-evaluation briefing/training sessions to ensure evaluators’ understanding of the evaluation procedures to be followed. Training in and use of automatedcomputerized eduation techniques may facilitate and improve the evaluation process. Review of a cross-reference matrix (if used in the solicitation) may facilitate an understanding of solicitation requirements and criteria, factors and appropriate sub factors to be evaluated.

4. &. Proposal evaluation and source selection activity should be at a single Government site to enhance control over the conduct and coordination of the evaluation and security of proposal material and evaluation results; however, for joint service programs, evaluation sites at each activity may be appropriate. Support contractor controlled conference rooms may not be used when source selection sensitive information will be evaluated or discussed.

Enclosure (3) 2


5. Official Comuetition File. Documents crucial to the source selection decision, the successful conduct of debriefings, and the successful disposition of any protests will be retained by the PCO. These documents should clearly detail the planning, evaluation, and selection decision. After award, the PCO shall establish the official competition file consisting of the following items: procurement IPT agreements, documented acquisition strategy andor the Acquisition Plan, business clearances, SSP, solicitation with attachments, SSEB and evaluation factor team evaluation plan and working papers, SSACISSEB briefing charts (including: initial briefing, competitive range briefing, final briefing, and any special SSAC/SSEB briefings), minutes of all SSAC meetings, SSA briefing charts, SSA determination memoranda (including RFP release, competitive range, and award), final SSEB/evaluation factor team report, proposal analysis report, competing offeror's proposals (originals), and Certificates of Non-Disclosure and Financial Interest.

3 Enclosure (3)


Outstanding

0

Highly Satisfactory

HS

Satisfactory

S Marginal

M Unsatisfactory

U

RATING AND RISK DEFINlTIONS

The ratings reflect the Government's assessment of solicitation compliance and the expected results, based on the offeror's proposed approach.

Proposal significantly exceeds requirements in a way that benefits the Government or meets requirements and contains at least one exceptional enhancing feature, which benefits the Government. Any weakness is minor. Proposal exceeds requirements in a way that benefits the Government or meets requirements and contains enhancing features, which benefit the Government. Any weakness is minor. Proposal meets requirements. Any weaknesses are minor and will have little or no impact on contract performance. Proposal contains weaknesses or minor deficiencies, which could have some impact if accepted.

Proposal does not comply substantially with requirements.

I I

Low

L

Medium

M

High

H

Has little or no potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort will probably be able to overcome difficulties. Can potentially cause some disruption of schedule, increase in cost or degradaJion of performance. However, special contractor emphasis will probably be able to overcome difficulties. Likely to cause significant serious disruption of schedule; increase in cost, or degradation of performance even with special contractor emphasis.

Enclosure (4)


RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS (continued)

PERFORMANCE RISK (for Past Performance and Experience ) Very low

VL

Low

L

Moderate

M

High

H

Very High

VH

unknown

UNK

Based on the offeror’s experience or past performance, essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Based on the offeror’s experience or past performance, little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Based on the offeror’s exoerience or uast performance, some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Based on the offeror’s experience or past performance, substantial doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the . . required effort. Based on the offeror’s experience or past performance, extreme doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. No performance record identifiable. This applies only to Past Performance.

Enclosure (4) 2


CERTIFICATE OF NON-DISCLOSURE AND FINANCIAL INTEREST

From: Code: Phone:L) (Last name first)

To: Source Selection Security Officer (AIR-2.xxx)

Subj: CERTIFICATE OF NON-DISCLOSURE AND FINANCIAL INTEREST

1. - As determined by the first-line supervisor, after consulting with the X X X Program PCO/SSEB Chair, I am not required to file a financial disclosure report because I am not personally and substantially involved through decision or the exercise of significant judgment in preparing solicitation documents, evaluating proposals, or any activity associated with this source selection process.

2. 1 certify: (Check one)

- I have a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report (OGE-450) currently on file with an ethics counselor (AIR-1 1 or the site equivalent).

- I have a Public Financial Disclosure Report (SF-278) currently on file with an ethics counselor (AIR-I 1 or the site equivalent). (For Flag Officers or SES employees)

- 1 have not filed a current OGE-450 or SF-278 with an ethics counselor (AIR-1 1 or site equivalent).

3. I agree, unless authorized by the PCO only, that I will not disclose any information concerning this source selection process to: (1) any offerors or potential offerors (including subcontractors) except as part of any authorized discussions; (2) any person outside Department of Defense (DoD) (e.g., trade association representative, reporter); and (3) any person within DoD (including superiors, supervisors, and associates),

4. I understand that prior to any authorized disclosures, I shall obtain a Certificate of Non- Disclosure and Financial Interest (Certificate) for this source selection from the person to whom disclosure has been approved or 1 have verified that a Certificate for this source selection is on file with the Source Selection Security Officer for that person.

5. I understand my obligation not to disclose information inaludes: (1) information and proposals received from the XXX Program offerors; (2) the methods or procedures being used by the SSAC and the SSEB (or Evaluation Team) to evaluate offerors’ proposals; (3) the substance of any discussions with any offerors; (4) the standards, ratings, or scores used in the evaluation process; and (5) any decision of the Source Selection Authority (unless and until such decision is publicly announced).

6. I certify to the best of my knowledge, neither I, my spouse, nor any minor children of mine, currently have a direct or indirect financial interest in any of the firms or sub-contractors of firms that are expected to submit a proposal for consideration by the XXX Program SSAC, or SSEB (or Evaluation Team), nor am 1 negotiating employment with any such firm. I agree to

Enclosure (5)

NAVAIRMST 4200.39B 5 Sep 03 immediately report to the XXX Program PCO, the SSEB (or Evaluation Team) Chair, or SSAC Chair any contact regarding possible non-Federal employment by any of the firms or subcontractors of firms that have submitted a proposal for consideration. In the event I later become aware of such financial interest, 1 agree to report this fact immediately to the XXX Program PCO, the SSEB Chair (or Evaluation Team Leader), or SSAC Chair, as applicable, particularly for the purpose of disqualifying myself from any W e r participation in this source selection. If I am disqualified or otherwise removed from the source selection process, I agree that I will not disclose any information described above.

7. Further, I understand that failure. to comply with the above requirements will result in dismissal from this source selection and may result in disciplinary action and referral for civil or criminal action.

(PARTICIPANT’S SIGNATURE) (PERMANENT DUTY STATION) (DATE)

Enclosure (5) 2