SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

source selection process l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

play fullscreen
1 / 30
SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS
1185 Views
Download Presentation
MartaAdara
Download Presentation

SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS Fran Gomes and Sally Merritt NAVFAC Midwest

  2. PURPOSE OF SOURCE SELECTIONS • Used for “best value” procurements • When the Navy wants to evaluate price and other factors • “low bid” contracts (Sealed Bid/Invitation for Bid process) are now rarely used by our office

  3. Procurement Regulations • Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) • Department of Defense FAR Supplement (DFARs) • Navy/Marine Corps Acquisition Regulation Supplement (NMCARs) • Naval Facilities Engineering Command Supplement (NFAS) • Web site – www.arnet.gov/far • Key chapters: • Part 12 – Commercial Items • Part 13 – Simplified Acquisition Procedures (under $100,000) • Part 15 – Contracting by Negotiation (over $100,000) • Part 36 – Construction and Architect/Engineer Contracts • Part 37 – Service Contracting

  4. Trade-off Analysis • Best value: Selection can be made to other than the lowest priced or highest technically rated proposal • Technical evaluation factors and sub-factors are established by relative order of importance • Relative importance of cost/price and other factors is specified in the Request for Proposals • Trade-offs are permitted

  5. EVALUATION FACTORS • Represent key areas of importance • Create proper filters to select the best value offeror • Support comparison and discrimination between and among proposals • The Request for Proposals (RFP) will indicate their relative order of importance • For example - “technical evaluation factors are significantly more important than cost or price” or “technical evaluation factors are approximately equal to cost or price”

  6. Technical Evaluation Factors Historical information on proposer - financial capability - past performance - relevant experience - key personnel Quality of proposed product or service - facility - equipment - project organization - work procedures – safety and quality control - schedule

  7. Price Evaluation Criteria • Must be objective (the technical evaluation is subjective) • One “bottom line” price to objectively compare to other proposal prices • May include estimated cost of changed work • May include completion schedule credit • May include adds/deducts for alternate technical solutions

  8. Rating System • NAVFAC uses an adjectival rating system for rating technical evaluation factors • Other agencies use numerical or point scoring rating systems • Ratings are “exceptional,” “highly acceptable”, “acceptable,” “marginal,” “unacceptable”, or “not rated” to evaluate each technical factor and establish an overall rating • Proposals are objectively compared to the requirements in the RFP – proposal of one firm is not compared to the proposals of the other firms

  9. Evaluation of Proposals - Roles • Source Selection Authority: • makes the final selection decision • Warranted Contracting Officer • Source Selection Board: • objectively reviews the reports from the Technical and Price Evaluation Boards and performs trade-off analysis • Chairman is a warranted Contracting Officer with customer membership • Technical Evaluation Board: • evaluates the technical proposals and recommends the overall adjectival ratings • does not have access to any price information to maximize technical objectivity • Chairman has a high level of technical expertise • Price Evaluation Board: • evaluates the price proposals • Contract Specialist

  10. TechnicalPriceCompany A exceptional $1,000,000Company B acceptable $ 900,000Company C marginal $ 800,000Who do you award the contract to? Evaluation Example:

  11. Past Performance Evaluation Factor • Past performance is a required rating factor in all of our procurements • Normally we are looking for contractors who have previously performed contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity to the current project • Most current projects – work performed in the past three years – will be given the most weight

  12. Past Performance Evaluation Factor • Past performance is the best indicator of future performance • Navy can better predict how a contractor will perform with regard to quality of work and customer satisfaction • Contractors are incentivized to strive for excellence • Navy and Army Corps of Engineers enter performance data for construction contracts over $100,000 in the Construction Contract Appraisal Support System (CCASS) program • Navy and Army Corps of Engineers enter performance data for A/E contracts over $25,000 in the Architect/Engineer Contract Appraisal Support System (ACASS) program • Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARs) is the data base for service contracts

  13. Past Performance Evaluation Factor Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information is not available may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Government considers past performance information provided by the proposer as well as information obtained from any other sources available.

  14. Technical Qualifications Evaluation Factor • Key personnel resumes – normally the project superintendent, quality control manager, safety manager etc. • Specialized experience • Relevant • Recent • Registrations (if applicable)

  15. Technical Solution Evaluation Factor • Might include: - design solution narrative - conceptual building design - sustainable design features - schedule and phasing plan - equipment schedule - durability/quality of materials

  16. Safety Evaluation • It has been NAVFAC’s experience that safe contractors are good contractors • As part of the technical evaluation we may ask for the offeror to provide their experience modifier rate (EMR) for the past three years. • Ratings lower than 1.0 are good • Provide explanation if there are extenuating circumstances • Contractors with no EMR will be rated neutrally

  17. Small Business Subcontracting Effort Evaluation Factor • Evaluation factor used in unrestricted procurements • Procurements over $1,000,000 for construction • Provide maximum opportunity to small, small disadvantaged, woman owned, HUBZone, and service disabled veteran businesses • Contractors who exceed the NAVFAC goals will be rated most highly

  18. Small Business Subcontracting – NAVFAC’s FY 06 Goals

  19. Review of Proposals • After review of initial proposals, the government: - may request clarifications – either to correct minor or clerical errors, or to resolve adverse past performance information - may make an award based upon initial proposals - may make a competitive range determination and open discussions with all contractors in the competitive range

  20. Discussions • Offerors eliminated from the competitive range will be notified • Discussions are tailored to each offeror’s proposal • Offerors will be notified when the discussion phase has ended and final proposal revisions are due

  21. Debriefings • Contractor’s can request a pre-award (exclusion from competitive range) or post award debriefing • Contractors must request a debriefing in writing within 3 days from notification of their exclusion from the competitive range or from notification of award of the contract

  22. Pre-award debriefing • Reason contractor was not included in the competitive range • Pre-award debriefings will NOT disclose: the number of offerors the identify of other offerors the ranking/evaluation of the other offerors

  23. Post-award debriefings • Significant weaknesses of the offeror’s proposal • Overall price and technical rating of the successful offeror and the offeror being debriefed • Award rationale • Source selection procedures

  24. Two-phase Design-Build selection procedures • When do we use these procedures? • FAR 36.3 • Applicable to construction only • When design work must be performed by offerors before developing price or cost proposals, and • When offerors will incur a substantial amount of expense in preparing offers

  25. Two-phase Design-Build Selection Procedures • Phase I factors • Past performance • Key personnel • Past performance in utilizing small business, small disadvantaged business, woman owned small business, service disabled veteran owned small business, and HUBZone contractors • Management approach

  26. Two-phase Design-Build Selection Procedures • Phase II • Based upon the phase I submittals, government decides how many firms will advance to the second phase • No more than 5 firms advance to the second phase • Phase II Request for Proposals normally includes a factor to evaluate the offeror’s technical solution and small business subcontracting plan

  27. Important Web Sites • www.fedbizopps.gov – federal government site for posting solicitations • www.ccr.gov - Central contractor registration; prime contractors use this site to search for subcontractors • www.esol.navfac.navy.mil – NAVFAC site for posting solicitations • www.arnet.gov - acquisition regulations

  28. Procurement Technical Assistance Centers • Procurement Technical Assistance Centers (PTAC) provide assistance to contractors in obtaining information about upcoming projects and making proposals • http://www.aptac-us.org/new • College of DuPage PTAChttp://www.wingovcon.comPhone: 630-942-4611Contact: James Kleckner (kleckner@cdnet.cod.edu)Address: 425 Fawell Blvd.Glen Ellyn, IL 60137-6599 • College of Lake County PTACPhone: 847-543-2580Contact: Marc N. Violante (clcptac@clcillinois.edu)Address: 19351 West Washington StreetGrayslake, IL 60030 • Moraine Valley Community College PTACPhone: 708-974-5452Contact: Alvin Meroz (meroz@morainevalley.edu)Address: 10900 S. 88th AvenuePalos Hills, IL 60465-0937

  29. Points of Contact • You can contact Sally or Fran as follows: • Sally Merritt • NAVFAC Midwest Acquisition Support Line Coordinator • (847) 688-2600 ext. 102 • sally.merritt@navy.mil • Fran Gomes • NAVFAC Midwest Capital Improvements Business Line Coordinator • (847) 688-4766 ext. 300 • francine.gomes@navy.mil

  30. QUESTIONS??