industry to ask questions upfront and helps the government clarify the true procurement objective and to understand what might be possible from industry. If the requirements are clear in the RFP, the SSEB can focus more time during discus- sions on how the offeror intends to meet those requirements, rather than explain- ing what they are.
It is also important to involve future
SSEB members while developing the evaluation criteria (Sections L and M). Evaluators should be carefully selected from among subject-matter experts who can provide valuable input on the type of information that needs to be submit- ted with proposals and how it will be evaluated. Focusing on exactly what will be needed for evaluation and refer- encing specific paragraphs of solicitation requirements to be evaluated can pay dividends down the line.
PREPARING THE TEAM As the time approaches for the board to convene, members need to understand the procurement and evaluation criteria before receiving proposals. While the RFP is on the street, evaluators can start to review documents that will help them throughout the evaluation process.
Evaluators need to read the Source Selection Plan (SSP), Sections L and M, performance requirements, solicitation attachments, and any applicable regula- tions to familiarize themselves with the
“what” and “how” of the evaluation. If the evaluation will require access to specific databases and/or websites, the evaluator needs to request access in advance.
SSEB leadership, along with the procur- ing contracting officer (PCO) and legal advisor, should conduct training before the board convenes to review the source selection process, evaluation criteria, and
board administration. While it is impor- tant for each evaluator to know his or her specific factor, it is also important that each evaluator have an idea of the other evaluation factors.
After training, each evaluator should develop a checklist for his or her respec- tive
factors, outlining each of the
proposal submission requirements as stated in Section L of the RFP. Tis checklist will serve as a useful tool when proposals arrive and evaluators need to determine whether each offeror provided a complete proposal.
SETTING A SCHEDULE Once the board is underway, leader- ship needs to clearly communicate the goals and schedule to board members. Te leadership should have a schedule prepared in conjunction with the SSP to include the major milestone events: opening
of discussions, SSA brief-
ings, evaluations completed for each phase, final proposal
etc. Leadership also should strive
revisions, award, to
schedule SSA/Source Selection Author- ity Council (SSAC) briefings as early as possible, as the SSEB will be competing for time with the other meetings, travel, training, and leave schedules of people coming from many different organiza- tions or offices.
In addition to preparing a schedule, SSEB leadership should have
tors set goals between scheduled events, such as creating a template evaluation, completing draft evaluations, creating briefing charts, and setting up group reviews of evaluations. Tis will help evaluators better manage their time and will allow them a full understanding of the review process that must occur in each phase. Leadership should update this
schedule each week to adjust developments or setbacks. for evalua-
Troughout the process, communication among evaluators of the various factors is imperative. Te technical team may receive a response to an evaluation notice that not only affects the technical fac- tor but also could affect the cost/price or small business factor. Te response could change, or be in direct conflict with, information submitted for another fac- tor. Evaluators should make one another aware of these implications.
ASC.ARMY.MIL 121
DISCUSSIONS AND EVALUATIONS After checking the proposal for complete- ness, evaluators should start creating an evaluation for just one offeror that can serve as a template for the other offerors. Tis should be reviewed by the board leadership, PCO, and legal advisor before creating other evaluations. Te template sets a standard for format and content to be included in each of the evaluations— such as proposal references, solicitation references, offeror’s proposed approach, adjectival
rating, supporting narrative,
strengths, weaknesses, and summary— to ensure consistency. With a better idea of what the reviewers will be looking for, evaluators will save time in executing the remaining evaluations.
Once discussions are open, leadership should ensure that evaluators create eval- uation notices that are in line with the SSP and Sections L and M. It is important to stay focused on what Section M states is being evaluated and limit requests for details to those that clarify what is being proposed or support an evaluation find- ing. If evaluators are not receiving the information they need in response to evaluation notices, it may help to set up a teleconference with offerors to clarify the intent of the evaluation notice. After the teleconference, a formal evaluation notice should be sent to follow up and get a written response from the offeror.
CONTRACTING
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212
