Download
1 / 50
520 likes | 1.76k Vues
2. . Available Training. Pre-Solicitation:Market ResearchRisk AssessmentRequirements Document DevelopmentCost
E N D
1. Performance Price Trade-Off (PPT) Welcome to the AFMC Performance Price Tradeoff Training Session. This is a just-in-time briefing presented for your information as you prepare for a source selection using this process.
16 Jul 04: This briefing is in accordance with AFAC 2004-0721.
25Aug04: Corrected link to feedback site on last slide.
21Sep04: Removed SSA designation info from slide 5; inserted new slide 8 with SSA info. Corrected documentation requirements on slide 9 (old slide 8)
29Sep04: Replaced relative weight with relative importance; Slide 12 and 34 clarified that use of MP5315 ratings is recommended, not required for PPT; Slide 37 notes added; Slide 38 typo corrected, notes added; Slide 43 notes added; Slide 46 changed none to neutral;
9May05: Updated for new AF PPT Guide on Slide 10 notes, Slide 36 & notes, Slides 38-49.
21Oct05: Administrative updates.Welcome to the AFMC Performance Price Tradeoff Training Session. This is a just-in-time briefing presented for your information as you prepare for a source selection using this process.
16 Jul 04: This briefing is in accordance with AFAC 2004-0721.
25Aug04: Corrected link to feedback site on last slide.
21Sep04: Removed SSA designation info from slide 5; inserted new slide 8 with SSA info. Corrected documentation requirements on slide 9 (old slide 8)
29Sep04: Replaced relative weight with relative importance; Slide 12 and 34 clarified that use of MP5315 ratings is recommended, not required for PPT; Slide 37 notes added; Slide 38 typo corrected, notes added; Slide 43 notes added; Slide 46 changed none to neutral;
9May05: Updated for new AF PPT Guide on Slide 10 notes, Slide 36 & notes, Slides 38-49.
21Oct05: Administrative updates.
2. 2 Available Training Pre-Solicitation:
Market Research
Risk Assessment
Requirements Document Development
Cost & Price Planning
Section L & M Development
Proposal Evaluation:
Evaluation of Mission Capability & Proposal Risk
Performance Confidence Assessment
Cost & Price Evaluation - two options:
Firm Fixed Price
Cost Reimbursable
Debriefings
Also Available:
Performance Price Tradeoff
Small Dollar Source Selections Other AFMC Training Modules are available. See your local ACE or Acquisition Support personnel.Other AFMC Training Modules are available. See your local ACE or Acquisition Support personnel.
3. 3 Genesis
What Is It?
The Evaluation Process
The Tradeoff Decision
Documentation
Samples Overview
4. 4 Genesis of PPT General shift from Sealed Bid to Low Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA)
LPTA within Best Value continuum but doesnt permit tradeoff to better performer
Initially past performance evaluated in LPTA as pass/fail
Emphasis on Past Performance led to PPT process In the last several years, we saw a shift in the AF from formal source selections to LPTA acquisitions when the requirements were very well defined and there were few distinguishing areas that justify the source selection process.
The LPTA is on the best value continuum described in FAR 15. (Best value is an outcome, not an acquisition process)
In addition to the shift to LPTA, Acquisition Reform has driven an increased emphasis on Past Performance. Initially we evaluated past performance as a pass/fail criteria. However, as a result of case law, FAR 15 now requires a Certificate of Competency be obtained from the SBA for any small business failing a past performance evaluation under LPTA.
PPT was first used in the AF to get around this issue because a COC is only required when past performance is pass/fail. If past performance is evaluated as a risk and can be traded-off, COCs are not an issue.
Since then we have found PPT to be a useful technique for all types of acquisitions from construction to complex O&M contracts.In the last several years, we saw a shift in the AF from formal source selections to LPTA acquisitions when the requirements were very well defined and there were few distinguishing areas that justify the source selection process.
The LPTA is on the best value continuum described in FAR 15. (Best value is an outcome, not an acquisition process)
In addition to the shift to LPTA, Acquisition Reform has driven an increased emphasis on Past Performance. Initially we evaluated past performance as a pass/fail criteria. However, as a result of case law, FAR 15 now requires a Certificate of Competency be obtained from the SBA for any small business failing a past performance evaluation under LPTA.
PPT was first used in the AF to get around this issue because a COC is only required when past performance is pass/fail. If past performance is evaluated as a risk and can be traded-off, COCs are not an issue.
Since then we have found PPT to be a useful technique for all types of acquisitions from construction to complex O&M contracts.
5. 5 PPT - What Is It? Another technique in the best value continuum
More flexible than LPTA and less complex than Full Tradeoff (FTO)
Pass/fail evaluation for technical acceptability if technical proposals are required
Performance confidence assessed In a PPT the only factor traded off with cost/price is past performance. You may evaluate technical factors, but they are not traded off. Basically, PPT involves: a pass/fail evaluation for technical acceptability (if necessary), and an assessment of performance confidence, similar to a source selection.
For construction efforts and other services that have been typically acquired by IFB, a technical evaluation would not be appropriate. Also, commercial services where market research has shown that technical evaluations are not standard commercial practice should not include a technical evaluation, and neither should other straight forward requirements.
After evaluation of technical acceptability and performance confidence, a trade-off decision is made between cost/price and performance confidence. The decision will be made to either award to the lowest price technically acceptable offeror or to award to a higher priced, technically acceptable, offeror who has a higher performance confidence.In a PPT the only factor traded off with cost/price is past performance. You may evaluate technical factors, but they are not traded off. Basically, PPT involves: a pass/fail evaluation for technical acceptability (if necessary), and an assessment of performance confidence, similar to a source selection.
For construction efforts and other services that have been typically acquired by IFB, a technical evaluation would not be appropriate. Also, commercial services where market research has shown that technical evaluations are not standard commercial practice should not include a technical evaluation, and neither should other straight forward requirements.
After evaluation of technical acceptability and performance confidence, a trade-off decision is made between cost/price and performance confidence. The decision will be made to either award to the lowest price technically acceptable offeror or to award to a higher priced, technically acceptable, offeror who has a higher performance confidence.
6. 6 PPT When To Use It Allows the government to award to other than the offeror with the lowest evaluated price and award to an offeror with a better performance confidence rating
Appropriate to broad spectrum of requirements, e.g.,
Replenishment spares
Operational contracting acquisitions
Some types of construction contracting
Non-developmental, noncomplex service or supplies
Service contracts with only pass/fail technical requirements
Low technical complexity build to print contracts Since a technical proposal is not necessarily a requirement of the solicitation, what does technically acceptable mean in an acquisition for replenishment spares? The team may determine offers are technically acceptable when a proposal submitted complies with the terms and conditions of the solicitation and states the offerors intent to build a part in accordance with the required drawings.
Since a technical proposal is not necessarily a requirement of the solicitation, what does technically acceptable mean in an acquisition for replenishment spares? The team may determine offers are technically acceptable when a proposal submitted complies with the terms and conditions of the solicitation and states the offerors intent to build a part in accordance with the required drawings.
7. 7 PPT When Not to Use It Sole source buys
Sealed Bidding
Technically complex buys
8. 8 Source Selection Authority $10M and under - Contracting Officer
Over $10M
PEO Program same as in full tradeoff source selections
designated in AFFARS 5315.303
Other Contracting MAJCOMs and DRUs establish
AFMC Contracting Officer unless acquisition plan approval authority designates otherwise
The Contracting Officer is the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for PPT acquisitions $10M and under. Over $10M, it depends on whether the program is a PEO program, or Other Contracting. The SSA designations for PEO programs are the same as in Full Tradeoff source selections. (AFFARS 5315.303)
MAJCOMs and DRUs establish SSAs for Other Contracting acquisitions over $10M. AFMC has designated the Contracting Officer as the SSA on all other contracting acquisitions using PPT, unless the acquisition plan approval authority designates otherwise. (AFMC FARS 5315.303) The Contracting Officer is the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for PPT acquisitions $10M and under. Over $10M, it depends on whether the program is a PEO program, or Other Contracting. The SSA designations for PEO programs are the same as in Full Tradeoff source selections. (AFFARS 5315.303)
MAJCOMs and DRUs establish SSAs for Other Contracting acquisitions over $10M. AFMC has designated the Contracting Officer as the SSA on all other contracting acquisitions using PPT, unless the acquisition plan approval authority designates otherwise. (AFMC FARS 5315.303)
9. 9 PPT Source Selection Documentation Source Selection Plan
Not required, recommended if SSA is other than the CO
Draft Request for Proposal (if used)/Request for Proposal
Proposals
Evaluation Worksheets and Summaries
Competitive Range Determination, if applicable
Evaluation Notices, if applicable
Decision Briefing, if SSA is other than the CO
Source Selection Decision Document
Include comparative assessment
The documentation requirements for Performance Price Tradeoff source selections are similar to those for full tradeoff source selections, but much of the documentation can be more streamlined.
A Source Selection Plan is not required, but if the Contracting Officer is not the SSA a Source Selection Plan is recommended to document approval of your evaluation factors.
Evaluation worksheets and summaries can be the technical evaluation, Performance Confidence Assessment Group report, and Price Competition Memorandum.
A Decision Briefing is not required, but is recommended if the Contracting Officer is not the SSA.
The Source Selection Decision Document must include the comparative assessment of the proposals required by FAR 15.308.
Samples of the following documents are at the end of this briefing: Sections L & M of the RFP and Past Performance Questionnaire.The documentation requirements for Performance Price Tradeoff source selections are similar to those for full tradeoff source selections, but much of the documentation can be more streamlined.
A Source Selection Plan is not required, but if the Contracting Officer is not the SSA a Source Selection Plan is recommended to document approval of your evaluation factors.
Evaluation worksheets and summaries can be the technical evaluation, Performance Confidence Assessment Group report, and Price Competition Memorandum.
A Decision Briefing is not required, but is recommended if the Contracting Officer is not the SSA.
The Source Selection Decision Document must include the comparative assessment of the proposals required by FAR 15.308.
Samples of the following documents are at the end of this briefing: Sections L & M of the RFP and Past Performance Questionnaire.
10. 10 Request for Proposal If technical proposals are required, develop discriminators to determine pass/fail status of each offer, based on
Experience historical performance speaks volumes
Market Research reveals information about Industry standards and capabilities
Risk Assessment identify risks, mitigation plans
Performance Threshold Requirements SOO, SOW, etc.
State relative importance of factors
Past Performance is significantly more important than/approximately equal to/significantly less important than cost/price considerations
While stating that price is significantly more important than past performance (or that past performance is significantly less important than price) is one of the FAR prescribed statements, it diminishes the flexibility for tradeoff and is not a recommended strategy.
The relative importance of the factors should be discussed with the customer when developing the solicitation.
While stating that price is significantly more important than past performance (or that past performance is significantly less important than price) is one of the FAR prescribed statements, it diminishes the flexibility for tradeoff and is not a recommended strategy.
The relative importance of the factors should be discussed with the customer when developing the solicitation.
11. 11 PPT How You Evaluate It When technical proposals are required, determine technical acceptability of each offeror
Based on pass/fail evaluation criteria in the solicitation
Offeror must pass all criteria to be considered acceptable
If contractor is determined technically unacceptable, do not go further with price, performance evaluations
Price for each technically acceptable proposal will be evaluated for price reasonableness, then ranked by total evaluated price to determine the low offeror
Assess performance confidence for each offeror, or specified number of lowest priced technically acceptable offerors The technical acceptability of each offeror is determined using the pass/fail evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP. Only evaluation criteria in the RFP will be used to determine technical acceptability. All of the criteria must be passed to be considered technically acceptable.
Once all offerors have been evaluated, the technically acceptable offerors are ranked by price.
At the same time as the technical evaluation, performance confidence is assessed for each offeror. If technical proposals are required, we recommend you request past performance information be submitted early so you can be working on your past performance assessment while you wait for the technical proposals to come in. Past performance information can be requested as soon as 15 days after RFP release.
If a large number of proposals is anticipated, you may plan to assess performance confidence on only the lowest priced technically acceptable offerors (need at least two responsible offerors for adequate price competition). Make sure you address this in your description of the evaluation process in the solicitation (i.e. Section M or equivalent solicitation provision).
The technical acceptability of each offeror is determined using the pass/fail evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP. Only evaluation criteria in the RFP will be used to determine technical acceptability. All of the criteria must be passed to be considered technically acceptable.
Once all offerors have been evaluated, the technically acceptable offerors are ranked by price.
At the same time as the technical evaluation, performance confidence is assessed for each offeror. If technical proposals are required, we recommend you request past performance information be submitted early so you can be working on your past performance assessment while you wait for the technical proposals to come in. Past performance information can be requested as soon as 15 days after RFP release.
If a large number of proposals is anticipated, you may plan to assess performance confidence on only the lowest priced technically acceptable offerors (need at least two responsible offerors for adequate price competition). Make sure you address this in your description of the evaluation process in the solicitation (i.e. Section M or equivalent solicitation provision).
12. 12 PPT How You Evaluate It (contd) Past Performance Information on relevant contracts submitted with proposal
Government obtains performance feedback through questionnaires, telephone surveys and automated systems
e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System; Red-Yellow-Green system applies in some cases
Performance Confidence assigned
Recommend using the performance ratings established in AFFARS MP5315, paragraph 5.5.3.2 Past performance is evaluated to give the government a confidence level in the contractors ability to perform on the new contract based on how well it performed similar contracts. The government evaluates this by requesting contractors provide information on previous contracts with their proposals.
The government then obtains performance feedback from these references, as well as others through questionnaires, telephone surveys or both. Based on the feedback obtained, the government assesses the performance confidence.
Refer to slides 45-49 for an example of a past performance questionnaire.
Red-Yellow-Green: Air Logistics Centers should refer to AFMCFARS 5315.305(a)(2)(90) for collection of past performance information on competitive spares acquisitions.
BEST PRACTICE TIP: Request past performance data be provided early, i.e., prior to receipt of proposals. This allows more time to review the data, follow up on feedback surveys not received, and reduces the chance of schedule slippage.Past performance is evaluated to give the government a confidence level in the contractors ability to perform on the new contract based on how well it performed similar contracts. The government evaluates this by requesting contractors provide information on previous contracts with their proposals.
The government then obtains performance feedback from these references, as well as others through questionnaires, telephone surveys or both. Based on the feedback obtained, the government assesses the performance confidence.
Refer to slides 45-49 for an example of a past performance questionnaire.
Red-Yellow-Green: Air Logistics Centers should refer to AFMCFARS 5315.305(a)(2)(90) for collection of past performance information on competitive spares acquisitions.
BEST PRACTICE TIP: Request past performance data be provided early, i.e., prior to receipt of proposals. This allows more time to review the data, follow up on feedback surveys not received, and reduces the chance of schedule slippage.
13. 13 The Evaluation Process May award without discussions
Issues dealing with Past Performance dont qualify as discussions
Discussions may be necessary
Technical Issues
Cost/Price
Request Final Proposal Revisions
Evaluate Final Proposal Revisions Like any other negotiated acquisition, the government may award without discussions. Past performance issues may be addressed as clarifications and award without discussions may still be made.
The government also has the option to conduct discussions before making a selection. Discussions are only held with offerors in the competitive range (those offerors with the most highly rated proposals). Discussions may include technical issues which affect technical acceptability, past performance issues, or cost issues.
Once all issues have been resolved, Final Proposal Revisions are requested.
The Final Proposal Revisions are then evaluated in the same manner as the initial evaluation.
Again, the technically acceptable offerors are ranked by price.Like any other negotiated acquisition, the government may award without discussions. Past performance issues may be addressed as clarifications and award without discussions may still be made.
The government also has the option to conduct discussions before making a selection. Discussions are only held with offerors in the competitive range (those offerors with the most highly rated proposals). Discussions may include technical issues which affect technical acceptability, past performance issues, or cost issues.
Once all issues have been resolved, Final Proposal Revisions are requested.
The Final Proposal Revisions are then evaluated in the same manner as the initial evaluation.
Again, the technically acceptable offerors are ranked by price.
14. 14 Evaluation Process (contd) Award may be made to the technically acceptable, low price offeror with acceptable performance confidence
The government has the right to make a trade-off decision and award to other than the low offeror based on better performance confidence
Good business judgment shall be used in making a trade-off decision
Basis for decision must be thoroughly documented If the low price, technically acceptable offeror has an acceptable performance confidence, award may be made to them. Acceptable would be a confidence rating the base could live with, probably not a Little or No Confidence rating.
However, award may be made to a higher priced offeror with a better performance confidence rating, regardless of the confidence rating of the low offeror. For example if the low priced offeror has a Satisfactory Confidence rating, a decision could still be made to award to a higher priced offeror with a Significant or High Confidence rating (e.g. see the Grounds maintenance example in Slide 21 notes)
If the decision is made to go to a higher priced offeror, it must be based on sound business judgement and the rationale for the trade-off shall be thoroughly documented.
This emphasis on past performance plays in the selection process and also should incentivize contractors to perform well on current contracts as it may affect future awards.If the low price, technically acceptable offeror has an acceptable performance confidence, award may be made to them. Acceptable would be a confidence rating the base could live with, probably not a Little or No Confidence rating.
However, award may be made to a higher priced offeror with a better performance confidence rating, regardless of the confidence rating of the low offeror. For example if the low priced offeror has a Satisfactory Confidence rating, a decision could still be made to award to a higher priced offeror with a Significant or High Confidence rating (e.g. see the Grounds maintenance example in Slide 21 notes)
If the decision is made to go to a higher priced offeror, it must be based on sound business judgement and the rationale for the trade-off shall be thoroughly documented.
This emphasis on past performance plays in the selection process and also should incentivize contractors to perform well on current contracts as it may affect future awards.
15. 15 The Three Areas of Evaluation (Phase 1)
Recency
Normally, performance within last 3 years
Relevancy
Does previous work relate to work under current acquisition? Should be able to link work to subfactors, PWS, etc.
(Phase 2)
Quality of Performance
Did the offeror do a good job? Confidence Rating The intent of the recency evaluation is to look at the entire contractual effort for any on-going contracts or contracts completed within the last three years. This means that if a 7-year contract is currently being performed and the offeror is only in the 5th year, we can (and should) look at the entire period of performance of the contract, not just the most recent 3 years. It also means that if a contract was completed 2 years ago and it is a 7-year contract, we should look at the entire period of performance, not just the last year of performance.
There have been instances where the language reads such that the government is only looking at the work that the offeror has done during the last three years, meaning even though it is a 5 year contract that was just completed yesterday, we are only going to look at the last three years of the effort. This was not the intent in defining recency for past performance evaluation. The intent of the recency evaluation is to look at the entire contractual effort for any on-going contracts or contracts completed within the last three years. This means that if a 7-year contract is currently being performed and the offeror is only in the 5th year, we can (and should) look at the entire period of performance of the contract, not just the most recent 3 years. It also means that if a contract was completed 2 years ago and it is a 7-year contract, we should look at the entire period of performance, not just the last year of performance.
There have been instances where the language reads such that the government is only looking at the work that the offeror has done during the last three years, meaning even though it is a 5 year contract that was just completed yesterday, we are only going to look at the last three years of the effort. This was not the intent in defining recency for past performance evaluation.
16. 16 Evaluation Steps
17. 17 Evaluating Recency In the RFP only request Past Performance Information from current performance and work completed within last 3 years
Determine the number of years appropriate for your industry
Should not be longer than 3 years except for unique items
Can use older info if offeror provides
GAO Decision B-284088.2, Oregon Iron Works, June 15, 2000
Generally, give more credit to most recent projects
Learning curves
Continuous improvement
Technology
Management
In the cited decision, the protester provided information on contracts completed more than 3 years prior to the source selection. The government properly evaluated that older performance, and the offeror protested that the older contracts shouldnt have been considered. GAO ruled that: Agency's consideration of past performance information regarding contract performance completed more than 3 years prior to source selection does not provide a basis to sustain the protest where the contracts were submitted by the protester as part of its proposal, in response to a solicitation requirement that offerors provide up-to-date past performance references and information.
Bottom line: if the offeror provides information on performance completed longer ago than the time specified in the solicitation, the government may evaluate/consider that information. In the cited decision, the protester provided information on contracts completed more than 3 years prior to the source selection. The government properly evaluated that older performance, and the offeror protested that the older contracts shouldnt have been considered. GAO ruled that: Agency's consideration of past performance information regarding contract performance completed more than 3 years prior to source selection does not provide a basis to sustain the protest where the contracts were submitted by the protester as part of its proposal, in response to a solicitation requirement that offerors provide up-to-date past performance references and information.
Bottom line: if the offeror provides information on performance completed longer ago than the time specified in the solicitation, the government may evaluate/consider that information.
18. 18 Evaluating Relevancy Consider size and complexity
Product similarity/complexity
Program phase
Management
Skills
Nature of work
Contract type
Relevancy determinations must relate to the work that offeror or subcontractors (including key personnel of each) will be performing on pending contract
Relevancy does not mean the same work but similar work - take the big picture view of relevancy
19. 19 Evaluating Quality of Performance Evaluation based on ratings in questionnaires and other information obtained
e.g., CPARS, CCASS, PPIRS
Go beyond the adjectival rating on questionnaire
Find out what drove the adjectival rating
Consider comments in questionnaire
Follow-up calls to respondent
Elevate as necessary to get information
20. 20 From Evaluation to Confidence Rating
21. 21 Confidence Ratings
High Confidence Based on the offerors performance record, the government has high confidence the offeror will successfully perform the required effort
Significant Confidence - the government has significant confidence
Satisfactory Confidence - the government has confidence; normal contractor emphasis should preclude problems
Unknown Confidence - No performance record
Little Confidence - Substantial doubt exists
No Confidence - Extreme doubt exists This 6 tiered performance confidence ratings, gives the government more flexibility in making sound trade-off decisions. Under the old 4 tiered scale (Low, Moderate, High, NA) there was no way to distinguish between outstanding performers and contractors who just barely satisfied the requirements. With the old scale both contractors would receive a Low risk.
The new scale allows us to distinguish between them and give credit to the outstanding performers. In addition, the 6 tiered scale also allows us to consider recency, relevancy, and quality of past performance. For example on a $9M Grounds Maintenance contract at FE Warren AFB under the 4 tiered scale, one offeror had high approval ratings from his customers on grounds maintenance type work, but the highest priced project was $43K. Under the old scale, they were forced to either assign a low risk or an NA rating - low risk because of his customer satisfaction or NA because the size of the offerors projects were not relevant to the size and complexity of the FE Warren requirement. The same case existed for another offeror who received high ratings from all his customers but all prior jobs were for just tree work rather than all the elements of grounds maintenance. With the 6 tiered scale, both offerors may have received a Satisfactory Confidence rating, because they had a good performance record. Yet they could also be distinguished from good performers who also had experience in projects of the same size, complexity and type of work. These offerors could have received High or Significant Confidence ratings.
This new scale no longer lumps everyone that is satisfactory and above in one category and allows the government to make an informed trade-off decision.This 6 tiered performance confidence ratings, gives the government more flexibility in making sound trade-off decisions. Under the old 4 tiered scale (Low, Moderate, High, NA) there was no way to distinguish between outstanding performers and contractors who just barely satisfied the requirements. With the old scale both contractors would receive a Low risk.
The new scale allows us to distinguish between them and give credit to the outstanding performers. In addition, the 6 tiered scale also allows us to consider recency, relevancy, and quality of past performance. For example on a $9M Grounds Maintenance contract at FE Warren AFB under the 4 tiered scale, one offeror had high approval ratings from his customers on grounds maintenance type work, but the highest priced project was $43K. Under the old scale, they were forced to either assign a low risk or an NA rating - low risk because of his customer satisfaction or NA because the size of the offerors projects were not relevant to the size and complexity of the FE Warren requirement. The same case existed for another offeror who received high ratings from all his customers but all prior jobs were for just tree work rather than all the elements of grounds maintenance. With the 6 tiered scale, both offerors may have received a Satisfactory Confidence rating, because they had a good performance record. Yet they could also be distinguished from good performers who also had experience in projects of the same size, complexity and type of work. These offerors could have received High or Significant Confidence ratings.
This new scale no longer lumps everyone that is satisfactory and above in one category and allows the government to make an informed trade-off decision.
22. 22 Assigning Confidence Rating Takes time to do good job
Combines aspects of recency, relevancy and quality
Focusing on most relevant projects reduces time and enhances quality of assessment Slide 50 is one example of an evaluation worksheet. Slide 50 is one example of an evaluation worksheet.
23. 23 A Note on Neutral Ratings Rate unknown confidence (neutral) for NO relevant past performance experience
Should be rare since past performance includes considering:
Key personnel
Subcontractors
Former company
Unknown confidence does not mean negative Obtain past performance information on subcontractors, teaming partners, and joint ventures that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when the information is relevant to the instant acquisition. In some acquisitions, past performance information on predecessor companies and/or key personnel who have relevant experience is required.
Obtain past performance information on subcontractors, teaming partners, and joint ventures that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when the information is relevant to the instant acquisition. In some acquisitions, past performance information on predecessor companies and/or key personnel who have relevant experience is required.
24. 24 Adverse Past Performance Source Selection teams MAY NOT use adverse past performance information on which the offeror has not had an opportunity to comment
FAR 15.306(a)(2), 15.306(b)(4)
If the offeror has previously commented (e.g., CPARS) no requirement to provide additional information
Government must disclose adverse past performance information to offerors, including identity of contract on which the information is based, but shall not disclose names of individuals who provided information
25. 25 Adverse Past Performance (contd) What constitutes adverse past performance?
Information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation aspect
Any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system
A judgment call based on circumstances of the acquisition
Industry perspective: any rating below Exceptional
How do you know when to clarify?
Best interest to discuss even if above satisfactory
When information leads to assignment of lower confidence rating
When adverse information is provided by only one respondent
When there is doubt about the validity of the comments Even though industry may consider any rating below the highest possible as adverse, the government only considers ratings that are less than satisfactory as adverse.Even though industry may consider any rating below the highest possible as adverse, the government only considers ratings that are less than satisfactory as adverse.
26. 26 Subcontractor Information Past Performance information is proprietary
The prime is responsible for the proposal and its contents which includes information submitted by subcontractors
Advise the prime in general terms if there is a concern in the area of past performance
Prime may already have waiver from sub to discuss information (many include this) directly with government
Discussion directly with subcontractor also option
Bottom line protect information but you cant overlook primes interest
27. 27 The Tradeoff Decision
28. 28 Tradeoff Comparison of Proposals
Consider potential performance-price benefit of all offerors with more highly rated past performance than lowest priced offeror in accordance with RFP
Determine benefit to Air Force of awarding to offeror with better past performance at higher cost
When determining the potential benefit to the government of awarding to an offeror with better past performance at a higher cost, consider the amount of the cost differential, criticality of the project or service, potential consequences to the government in the event of poor contractor performance or failure to perform.When determining the potential benefit to the government of awarding to an offeror with better past performance at a higher cost, consider the amount of the cost differential, criticality of the project or service, potential consequences to the government in the event of poor contractor performance or failure to perform.
29. 29 The Tradeoff Decision Offerors with other than lowest price have better past performance
Compare value of better past performance to extra cost for both Offerors B (significant confidence) and C (high confidence)
Consider benefit to AF
Consider budget There is no right answer. You must consider the relative importance given to each factor as stated in the RFP in making your tradeoff decision. This is why its important to have put some thought into developing the relative importance of the factors before the solicitation is issued. There is no right answer. You must consider the relative importance given to each factor as stated in the RFP in making your tradeoff decision. This is why its important to have put some thought into developing the relative importance of the factors before the solicitation is issued.
30. 30 The Final Step - Documentation
31. 31 What to Document Thought process used to arrive at individual assessments of confidence for each offeror
Address recency, relevancy and quality
Tradeoff Decision
Why a tradeoff was made or not made
Explain fully the determination of best value decision that was made Refer to the AF PPT Guide, Attachment 9 for an example of a thoroughly documented source selection decision document addressing why tradeoffs were not made, and fully explaining the basis of the decision.Refer to the AF PPT Guide, Attachment 9 for an example of a thoroughly documented source selection decision document addressing why tradeoffs were not made, and fully explaining the basis of the decision.
32. 32 Key Questions to Ask Have the more relevant past performance assessments contributed more to the overall rating than those that were less relevant? Does the final rating and documentation convey this?
Have the more recent past performance assessments contributed more to the overall rating than those that were less recent? If not, why not? Does the final rating and documentation convey this?
If there were any adverse past performance issues, have they been discussed with the offeror? Have you documented the resolution of any conversations about adverse past performance and the impact of the adverse information on the overall confidence rating?
33. 33 Key Questions to Ask (contd) If any past performance information was discounted from evaluation because it was found to be non-relevant, was the rationale for this determination addressed?
If subcontractors are proposed, is the proposed scope of effort (both amount of work and type of work) for the prime and subcontractors addressed?
Does the overall rating tie the relevancy and recency of the past performance information to the scope of the proposed effort for the prime and subs?
34. 34 Key Questions to Ask (contd) For offerors with the same final confidence ratings, does the documentation convey consistency of evaluation?
When the same subcontractor is proposed by more than one prime, have you consistently evaluated the sub using the same information (assuming they are being used in the same capacity by different primes)?
Are the confidence assessment ratings assigned and the documentation used to support the rating consistent with the definitions cited or provided in the solicitation?
35. 35 Debriefing Past Performance Recency and relevancy plus quality yield confidence rating, not quality alone
Documentation of rationale and all considerations is critical
Government must disclose adverse past performance information to offerors, including identity of contract on which the information is based, but shall not disclose names of individuals who provided information.Government must disclose adverse past performance information to offerors, including identity of contract on which the information is based, but shall not disclose names of individuals who provided information.
36. 36 Summary/Helpful Links & References Performance Price Trade-Off is a viable option in the Best Value continuum while emphasizing importance of past performance
Currently being used across AFMC
AF Toolkit Part 15
AF PPT Guide, dated July 2005
https://www.safaq.hq.af.mil/contracting/affars/5315/informational/IG5315.101-1.doc
Local ACE, Contract Policy Office and JAG
POC: Ms. Ann Marie Telepak, HQAFMC/PKPA, DSN 986-0378 PPT is a valuable tool that we have successfully used in AFMC and is being used across the Air Force.
NOTE: The AF PPT Guide presents three approaches to proposal evaluation that have proved successful in three different MAJCOMs. This training covers only one of the three possible approaches the approach historically used in AFMC. The other two approaches are:
AMC Rank proposals by price; evaluate a specified number of the lowest priced proposals for technical acceptability, price reasonableness and performance confidence; perform integrated best value assessment.
AETC Evaluate all proposals for technical acceptability; evaluate price reasonableness of acceptable proposals; rank by price; evaluate performance confidence of lowest priced offeror and then next lowest priced offerors until offeror is rated High Confidence; perform integrated best value assessment of evaluated offerors.
Selecting the method appropriate for an acquisition depends on many factors, such as number of proposals anticipated, available resources, funding, and SSA preferences. Ensure the selected approach is clearly communicated and strictly followed throughout the evaluation process.
PPT is a valuable tool that we have successfully used in AFMC and is being used across the Air Force.
NOTE: The AF PPT Guide presents three approaches to proposal evaluation that have proved successful in three different MAJCOMs. This training covers only one of the three possible approaches the approach historically used in AFMC. The other two approaches are:
AMC Rank proposals by price; evaluate a specified number of the lowest priced proposals for technical acceptability, price reasonableness and performance confidence; perform integrated best value assessment.
AETC Evaluate all proposals for technical acceptability; evaluate price reasonableness of acceptable proposals; rank by price; evaluate performance confidence of lowest priced offeror and then next lowest priced offerors until offeror is rated High Confidence; perform integrated best value assessment of evaluated offerors.
Selecting the method appropriate for an acquisition depends on many factors, such as number of proposals anticipated, available resources, funding, and SSA preferences. Ensure the selected approach is clearly communicated and strictly followed throughout the evaluation process.
37. 37 Section L
Section M
Past Performance Questionnaire
Samples The attached samples are not intended to be all-inclusive. Your acquisition may require additional information that is not represented in these documents. The attached samples are not intended to be all-inclusive. Your acquisition may require additional information that is not represented in these documents.
38. 38 Section L Guidance (No Technical Proposal Required) Source: Air Force Past Performance Evaluation Guide, July 2005
Paragraph C.1.(a) the specific blocks requiring completion have different numbers on different forms. Tailor to fit your acquisition.Source: Air Force Past Performance Evaluation Guide, July 2005
Paragraph C.1.(a) the specific blocks requiring completion have different numbers on different forms. Tailor to fit your acquisition.
39. 39 Section L Guidance (No Technical Proposal Required)
40. 40 Section L Guidance (No Technical Proposal Required)
41. 41 Section L Guidance (No Technical Proposal Required)
42. 42 Section M Guidance (No Technical Proposal Required) Source: Air Force Past Performance Evaluation Guide, July 2005Source: Air Force Past Performance Evaluation Guide, July 2005
43. 43 Section M Guidance (No Technical Proposal Required) If you plan to limit the past performance evaluation to the lowest priced offerors, make sure you evaluate enough offerors to satisfy adequate price competition requirements (i.e., at least two responsible offerors, competing independentlyFAR 15.403-1(c)(1)(i)).If you plan to limit the past performance evaluation to the lowest priced offerors, make sure you evaluate enough offerors to satisfy adequate price competition requirements (i.e., at least two responsible offerors, competing independentlyFAR 15.403-1(c)(1)(i)).
44. 44 Section M Guidance (No Technical Proposal Required)
45. 45 Past Performance Questionnaire Source: Air Force Past Performance Evaluation Guide, Mar 2003
While this questionnaire may work as written in some acquisitions, you should consider each question as it relates to each individual acquisition and tailor the questions as needed and appropriate.
Source: Air Force Past Performance Evaluation Guide, Mar 2003
While this questionnaire may work as written in some acquisitions, you should consider each question as it relates to each individual acquisition and tailor the questions as needed and appropriate.
46. 46 Past Performance Questionnaire
47. 47 Past Performance Questionnaire
48. 48 Past Performance Questionnaire
49. 49 Past Performance Questionnaire
50. 50 Questions or Feedback? Questions?
Feedback?
Comments/Recommendations can be posted at:
https://afkm.wpafb.af.mil/ASPs/NewBB/topics.asp?Filter=OO-AQ-PK-S1&forumid=1325
The training modules will be reviewed/updated periodically based on your inputs
