Evaluation Criteria 2

1. Evaluation Criteria 2 More than before!

2. A little help Decision Cost Issues Non-Cost Issues Where do we go from here?

3. EC Basics • FAR 15.304 • The following must be evaluated • Cost or price • Quality of product or service • Past performance (>100K) • Agencies have broad discretion in selecting criteria and their relative order of importance

4. Assessment vs. Specific • Assessment Criteria • State the overarching goals and attributes of the acquisition. Applied to all specific criteria to ensure the proposal meets the goals and attributes • Specific Criteria • Those explicit attributes an offeror must demonstrate to prove they can do the work

5. Examples • Assessment Criteria • cost schedule consciousness • Minimizes disruption of operations • Innovativeness • Specific Criteria • Systems engineering approach • Air-frame design • Sub-contract management

6. Criteria Organization • Understand the trade-off decision • What is being compared? • Decision is normally a choice of comparing “non-cost” criteria against “cost” criteria • When selecting a higher cost proposal, the perceived non-cost benefits must merit and justify the additional cost.

7. Organization Decision Cost Issues Non-Cost Issues Criteria is developed in a hierarchical format to allow the trade-off decision

8. Example Evaluated is offer is responsive to all aspects of proposed approach Cost Issues Completeness Evaluates estimating methods Realism Evaluated confidence in offerors ability to do the work For the proposed price Risk

9. More Organization • Area-broad category at highest level • Item-breaks areas into specific parts • Factor-categorize items more specifically • Sub-factor-more specific • Standard-defines minimum level of compliance and method of measurement

10. Example Standard Standard Standard Standard Non-Cost Issues Standard Standard Standard Standard Technical Approach Management Past Performance Standard Standard Standard Standard

11. Example Area: Technical Item: System Integration Description: This factor evaluates the adequacy of the offeror’s system safety program in effecting design changes or modifications to the baseline system to achieve special safety objectives Standard: The standard is met when the offeror : Demonstrates the proposed system safety program adequately supports system safety objectives Describes procedures by which engineering drawings, specifications, test plans and results will be evaluated at appropriate intervals to ensure safety

12. EC Basics • Basis for award decision • Must: • Represent key areas of importance and emphasis to be considered in decision • Explainable to all involved • Relevant to requirements • Measurable to the extent that equal judgementscan be made • Support meaningful comparison and discrimination between proposals

13. Developing Good Criteria • High quality evaluation criteria: • Linked to critical aspects of acquisition • High value • High risk • Limited to only those that discriminate • Independent of each other • Consistent with other solicitation instruction • Relevant to acquisition at hand

14. Developing Good Criteria Some Most Impact if it occurs Few Some Likelihood of occurrence

15. Developing Good Criteria • Get key players in same room! • Understand Requirements • Brainstorm criteria • Categorize into logical groups • Identify importance/risk to acquisition • Determine relative order of importance • Weight each criteria accordingly

16. Developing Good Standards • Evaluation standards • Developed to set an objective baseling to determine if the offerors meet, fail to meet, or exceed the requirements • Further define factors and subfactors • Act as a guide to ensure consistent evaluation of offers • Strengths and weaknesses identified based on standards

17. Developing Good Standards • Creating standards • Don’t try to quantify the unquantifiable • Write to allow evaluators to rate above and below the standard • Maintain flexibility. . .don’t anticipate all approaches • Ensure easy understanding • Do not create new requirements

18. Developing Good Standards • Poor: • Factor: Training program maintenance • Standard: An approach to course maintenance is demonstrated that ensure constant currency to regulation and applicable policy • Better: • Standard: An approach to course maintenance is demonstrated that incorporates revisions to course material with 3 weeks of the issue date of new FAR, DFARS, or Eglin Policy Letter issue date.

19. Developing Good Standards • Intensity levels can be used • Significantly above standard • Clearly above standard • Slightly above standard • Meets standard • Slightly below standard • Clearly below standard • Significantly below standard

20. Exercise • Write assessment criteria • Write specific criteria • Organize requirement • Brainstorm • Categorize into groups • Determine relative and absolute importance • Write Standards