$ FIGURE 3


University (DAU) guidance for source selection boards (SSBs). PdM SKOT and key program stakeholders further defined specific criteria with regard to program cost, performance and schedule, and created a prioritization matrix to assess alternatives. (See Figure 1 on Page 104.)


Te SSB process was helpful in providing an established,


accepted methodology


for selecting between commercial man- ufacturers. PdM SKOT applied it to a new process.


Te MoB process begins when the pro- gram office receives a requirement for procurement. If the requirement is new, acquisition professionals must either internally develop or acquire, via compet- itive prototyping, a full, manufacturable, technical data package (TDP). Te gov- ernment then can use the TDP to create an independent government mate (IGCE).


cost esti-


Next, the team must establish quantifi- able, meaningful criteria and sub-criteria based on program needs. Tese criteria form a mathematical matrix used to com- pare offers directly and to strip away bias and emotion from the decision-making process. As with the source selection pro- cess, the PdM SKOT MoB criteria do not focus solely on the lowest-cost bid for the program. In the case of PdM SKOT, the purpose of


the criteria and sub-criteria


is to judge an offeror’s ability to meet program needs with regard to cost, per- formance and schedule. For example:


 Cost—Criteria should, at a minimum, include an out-the-door cost for each item. Depending on the complexity of the program, a full breakdown of mate- rial and direct labor is preferable.


 Schedule—Criteria are easily quan- tifiable and should include questions regarding lead times and production


Summary Matrix: Options vs. All Criteria


Arsenal A Corporation 1 Corporation 2 Corporation 3 Corporation 4 Corporation 5


Final Cost Scores


0.163 0.154 0.015 0.170 0.015 0.015


Performance Scores


0.086 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049


Final


Final Schedule Scores


0.020 0.025 0.025 0.020 0.025 0.020


Grand Total Raw Total


0.269 0.228 0.089 0.239 0.089 0.085 1.00


Final Total RDV Score


0.269 0.228 0.089 0.239 0.089 0.085 1.00


Ranking


1 3 4 2 4 6


FINAL ANALYSIS This sample summary matrix compares offerors’ scores for the final analysis leading up to a MoB decision. Raw data entered into the matrix provide a recommendation to either buy commercially or make organically. The PdM team reviews the process for accuracy and makes a formal recom- mendation to the MDA based on the matrix findings. (SOURCE: Steve Le Febvre, PdM SKOT)


capacity per fiscal year: º Does the offeror have the ability to produce X number of completed assets in FY15?


º How many months of lead time are needed before delivery of the first completed asset?


 Performance—Criteria are listed as yes-or-no questions and quantified as binaries, with one point for “Yes” and zero points for “No.” º Does the offeror have the ability to store X number of completed assets?


º Does this offeror have experience or past performance that is rel- evant to the program?


Ten, PdM SKOT requests cost and additional data


based upon the


established matrix criteria and sub-criteria through a nonbinding (SS)


solicitation to industry a


sources-sought and


request for information (RFI) to organic manufacturers. Te SS and RFI require the offeror to submit cost data and answer questions derived from the PdM’s sub-criteria. PdM SKOT uses the cost and questionnaire data in the analysis to differentiate offers, which helps provide the PdM with the appropriate justification for the final MoB decision.


To ensure fairness, the PdM provides offerors from both organic facilities and commercial industry with the same ques- tionnaire and TDP, along with specific instruction on assumptions that may be made. Acquisition professionals instruct offerors to bid on a specific, low quan- tity for production to prevent offerors from claiming unreasonable cost savings or economies of scale. Te SS or RFI is further structured to clearly define and restrict the way an offeror must bid, to allow for as direct a comparison between offerors as possible.


WEIGHTED RESULTS Before receiving SS and RFI data, the PdM weights the main cost, performance and schedule criteria in accordance with the needs of the program. (See Figure 2.) For example, the acquisition team may emphasize cost criteria heavily, although performance and schedule


criteria are


still included to measure and mitigate program risk.


Acquisition professionals then use data from the SS and RFI process to assess the MoB alternatives by employing the full


analytical criteria method. Tis method is appropriate when there are few ASC.ARMY.MIL 105 Final


BBP 2.0


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