Contracting Handbook

March 2012Rev. 0

NAVAL SUPPLY SYSTEMS COMMANDGLOBAL LOGISTICS SUPPORT

Contracting Handbook

2012 Edition

FOREWORD

The GLS Contracting Handbook (GCH) is issued by the Commander, NAVSUP GLS. It is available electronically via the collaboration site at this URL: (https://applications.navsup.navy.mil/forums/zone1/dispatch.cgi). Hardcopies can only be obtained by downloading the GCH since hardcopy distribution will not be made.

The GCH will be maintained by the NAVSUP GLS Lead Contracting Executive (LCE) office. Proposed changes, together with the rationale for the change, should be sent to the LCE through the chain of command.

Updates to the GCH will be posted to the collaboration site. An announcement of the update, its effective date, and a summary of the changes will be issued through email to members of the contracting community who have registered at the collaboration site.

2

NAVSUP Global Logistics Center Contracting Handbook (GCH)

Table of Contents

GCHGCH 1.101 Purpose............................................................................................................................4

GCH 7.104- Acquisition Strategy Review Panel (ASRP), Contract Review Board (CRB), and Peer Review.................................................................................................................................................4

GCH 13.3- Use of Reverse Auctions....................................................................................................6

GCH PGI 7.104 - Acquisition Strategy Review Panel (ASRP), Contract Review Board (CRB), and Peer Reviews.......................................................................................................................................7

1. Acquisition Strategy Review Panel (ASRP) membership, responsibilities, and procedures............7

2. CRB membership, responsibilities, and procedures.........................................................................9

2.3. PHASE I CRB.............................................................................................................................9

2.4. PHASE II CRB..........................................................................................................................12

2.5. PHASE II(a) Peer Review.........................................................................................................14

2.6. PHASE III CRB.........................................................................................................................16

GCH PGI 13.3 - Use of Reverse Auctions.........................................................................................18

WAIVER FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO USE REVERSE AUCTIONS FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF COMMERCIAL SUPPLIES UNDER THE SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION THRESHOLD.......................................................................................................................................19

3

GCH 1.101 Purpose

The NAVSUP GLS Contracting Handbook (GCH) is issued by the Commander, NAVSUP GLS. It implements and supplements the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), the Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS), the Navy Marine Corps Acquisition Regulation Supplement (NMCARS), and other NAVSUP directives and instructions. The GCH is not a stand-alone document and shall be read in conjunction with the FAR, DFARS, NMCARS, and the NAVSUP Issuances.

1.104 Applicability.

This directive is applicable to the contracting function at all GLS activities.

1.301 Policy.

(a)(1) The GCH contains —

(i) Mandatory GLS-wide policy;

(ii) Designations or delegations of contracting authority.

GCH 7.104- Acquisition Strategy Review Panel (ASRP), Contract Review Board (CRB), and Peer Review.

(a) The ASRP, CRB, and Peer Review focus on key principles in taking an enterprise-wide approach, assessing metrics with expected outcomes, and establishing an acquisition to produce a business arrangement that is in the best interests of the Department of the Navy and our customers. While not mandatory, GLS activities are encouraged to engage the GLS in an ASRP, especially for any acquisition which may require waivers from established acquisition policy. The ASRP, when requested by the GLS field activity, and the CRB will convene at NAVSUP GLS to review proposed acquisitions according to the criteria and thresholds in paragraph (b), Table 1 below. The Peer Review is combined with the CRB where applicable in order to minimize the number of reviews an acquisition will go through. The Lead Contracting Executive (LCE) or Manager, Field Contracting Strategic Operations may direct an ASRP or CRB review of any acquisition. Examples of such acquisitions are special interest or high-risk procurements, to include any acquisition with Congressional, policy, audit, legal and/or bundling issues, as well as any acquisition with significant findings resulting from a Procurement Performance Management Assessment Program (PPMAP) review or an audit conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), DoD, or Navy.

4

5

(b) Review and Approval Thresholds.

TABLE 1

Activity Threshold

FLC Yokosuka $6.5M

FLC Sigonella $6.5M

FLC Jacksonville $6.5M

FLC Norfolk $50.0M

FLC Puget Sound $6.5M

FLC San Diego $25.0M

FLC Pearl Harbor $6.5M

(c) Conduct of ASRP, CRBs, and Peer Reviews with phases.

(1) Unless otherwise determined by the LCE or Manager, Field Contracting Strategic Operations, an ASRP, when requested by the GLS field activity, and CRB/Peer Review will convene to review acquisitions in accordance with the criteria and thresholds listed in GCH 7.104 (b), Table 1. For acquisitions requiring review at a level above the LCE, the LCE will still require the ASRP, when requested by the GLS field activity, and CRB, however the FLCs are encouraged to combine their internal reviews with the LCE reviews as much as practical. If requested, an ASRP will first be conducted, followed by a CRB for Phases I, II and III.

(2) Acquisition phases focus on critical decision points, where Phase I precedes the solicitation phase, Phase II precedes the opening of discussions, and Phase III precedes award of the contract(s). The pre-business clearance occurs in Phase II. The post-business clearance occurs in Phase III.

(3) The Pre-Solicitation Peer Review and Phase I CRB are concurrent. The Pre-Negotiation CRB is a standalone review, exclusive of the Peer Review process, and occurs at Phase II. The Pre-Final Proposal Revision Peer Review is exclusive of the CRB process, and occurs at Phase II(a). The Pre-Award Peer Review and Phase III CRB are concurrent.

(4) Detailed procedures for conducting the ASRP and CRB with membership representation and documentation requirements are within GCH PGI 7.104.

6

(d) Business Clearances

(1) Business clearances will be prepared for the contract actions described in NMCARS 5201.690 (b). A business clearance is not required for the contract actions described in NMCARS 5201.690(c).

(2) NAVSUPINST 4200.83 (series) identifies the business clearance format.

(3) Business clearances above the thresholds in GCH 7.104(b), Table 1 but below $100,000,000 will include a signature block for LCE approval. Business clearances above $100,000,000 will include a “Reviewed” signature block for LCE.

GCH 13.3- Use of Reverse Auctions

(a) Contracting offices in the United States, including Hawaii, shall use Reverse Auctions for the acquisition of commercial off-the-shelf supply item acquisitions under the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT). Procedural information is at GCH PGI 13.3.

(b) Should extenuating circumstances exist that preclude procuring supplies via Reverse Auction, contracting officers must prepare and approve a waiver following the guidance within GCH PGI 13.3.

(c) Reverse auctions are also encouraged where requirements support for supply acquisitions above the SAT.

7

GCH PGI 7.104 - Acquisition Strategy Review Panel (ASRP), Contract Review Board (CRB), and Peer Reviews.As specified in GCH 7.104 concerning the ASRP and CRB process, the following procedures will be used to conduct the ASRP, CRB, and Peer Reviews within the NAVSUP GLS Enterprise.

1. Acquisition Strategy Review Panel (ASRP) membership, responsibilities, and procedures

1.1. The ASRP is chaired by the Lead Contracting Executive (LCE) or the Manager, Field Contracting Strategic Operations, and will normally be composed of senior level management only. Based on the unique requirements of each acquisition, the ASRP Chairperson shall determine the membership for each ASRP that he/she chairs. As a learning opportunity, other contracting professionals may be permitted to participate on the review panel as a non-voting member. Membership may include the following:

NAVSUP GLS LCE or Manager, Field Contracting Strategic Operations (Code 20)*NAVSUP GLS Counsel (Code 00L)*NAVSUP GLS Department Heads**NAVSUP FLC Chief of the Contracting Office (CCO)*NAVSUP FLC Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)*NAVSUP FLC Deputy for Small Business*

8

NAVSUP FLC Senior Peer Review representative from another FLC***NAVSUP FLC Senior Peer Review representative from another FLC**** Standing members** Situational members depending on topic of the acquisition*** Peer Review Members on acquisitions over $50M, that otherwise meet CRB review criteria

(Peer Review assignments will be managed through the GLS Contracting Corporate Board (CCB))

1.2. If an ASRP is requested by the GLS field activity, the following paragraphs apply:1.2.1.Results of the ASRP are advisory to the PCO. However, if an ASRP is conducted, any

action items noted during the review should be incorporated into the pre-solicitation acquisition documents, with changes identified by the field activity.

1.2.2.The purpose of the ASRP is to verify that the proposed contracting approach is sound for DoD, the Navy, the NAVSUP Enterprise and the requiring activity. It will assist in developing major aspects of the acquisition strategy for the contemplated procurement well in advance of substantial expenditure of effort to develop the required acquisition documentation.

1.2.3.The ASRP should take place as early as possible in the acquisition planning process, prior to completion of any formal acquisition documents, the acquisition plan, or the solicitation, to develop a systematic and disciplined approach to achieving an efficient and effective acquisition. The FLC may plan the ASRP up to twelve (12) months prior to the planned solicitation release date, with additional time encouraged if a NAVSUP, DASN, or DPAP review of an acquisition document will be involved.

1.3. The briefing for the ASRP will address the topics of customer objectives, acquisition strategy, and procurement timeline as outlined below.

1.3.1. Customer’s Objectives: Describe the requirement, identify the customer(s), the customer’s objectives, and desired outcomes including Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), summary of initiative, scope, and total estimated value to include base period and all options. Explain how the acquisition will be funded and the availability of funding.

1.3.2. Acquisition Strategy: Describe how the strategy will meet the customer’s objectives and desired outcomes. Identify the contract type best suited to the identified acquisition strategy. Identify opportunities for strategic sourcing. Demonstrate use of PBSA methods or the rationale for not using PBSA. If other than full and open competition, address why it won’t apply and, if applicable, the actions being taken to improve competition for follow-on acquisitions. Outline the contract administration plan and resources identified to effectively manage the resulting contract(s). Describe market research results, if available, at the time of the ASRP. Outline socio-economic considerations, as well as any bundling and consolidation issues. Outline challenges and risks.

1.3.3. Procurement Timeline: Identify key target dates for the procurement to include at a minimum expected solicitation issue date, expected closing date, expected opening and

9

closing of negotiations, and expected award date. Identify transition concerns, including any need for a bridge contract or contract extension. Indicate if a NAVSUP, NAVY, or DPAP Review is required and include time to accommodate the reviews. Identify any required waivers or deviations.

2. CRB membership, responsibilities, and procedures

2.1. The CRB is chaired by the Lead Contracting Executive (LCE) or the Manager, Field Contracting Strategic Operations, and will normally be composed of senior level management only. Based on the unique requirements of each acquisition, the CRB Chairperson shall determine the membership for each CRB that he/she chairs. As a learning opportunity, other contracting professionals may be permitted to participate on the review panel as a non-voting member. Membership may include the following:

NAVSUP GLS LCE or Manager, Field Contracting Strategic Operations (Code 20)*NAVSUP GLS Counsel (Code 00L)*NAVSUP GLS Department Heads**FLC Chief of the Contracting Office (CCO)*FLC Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)*FLC Senior Peer Review representative from another FLC***FLC Senior Peer Review representative from another FLC**** Standing members** Situational members depending on topic of the acquisition*** Peer Review Members on acquisitions over $50M, that otherwise meet CRB review criteria

2.2. Acquisitions exceeding the local FLC approval threshold will be presented to a CRB at three phases: Phase I (prior to issuance of the solicitation), Phase II (prior to the opening of discussions), and Phase III (prior to contract award). All reviews will adhere to the following processes.

2.3. PHASE I CRB 2.3.1.Based on the acquisition’s strategy, the FLC will develop, finalize, and submit the

following pre-solicitation acquisition documents to GLS at least two (2) weeks prior to the anticipated solicitation issue date. If a peer review is required, the same documents will also be submitted to the identified peer reviewers at the same time.

2.3.2. CRB Documents: All source selection information and/or documents shall be marked as “Source Selection Information --- see FAR 2.101 and 3.104.” Documents shall be submitted in editable electronic form and posted to a collaboration room by the FLC. Documents submitted to GLS shall reflect evidence of review and coordination with the field activity’s Small Business specialist and Counsel with concurrence by the CCO.

2.3.2.1. The acquisition strategy document.2.3.2.2. The acquisition plan.

10

2.3.2.3. The estimated contract value, maximum solicitation/contract value, and minimum guarantee (if applicable) with rationale (e.g., historical pricing, market research, or independent government cost estimate (IGCE), etc.)

2.3.2.4. The source selection plan (SSP).2.3.2.5. Any required Justification and Approval (J&A) for other than full and open

competition.2.3.2.6. Any required consolidation and/or bundling determination.2.3.2.7. Any required Determination and Findings (D&F) for a single award task/delivery

order contract.2.3.2.8. Any required Exceptional Circumstances Determination for use of an Unusual

and Compelling Urgency.2.3.2.9. DD Form 2579, Small Business Coordination Record.2.3.2.10. The solicitation, with special provisions/clauses identified.2.3.2.11. Approved field activity board minutes or equivalent document.2.3.2.12. Copy of the ASRP recommendations, if conducted.

2.3.3.GLS review of the pre-solicitation documents:2.3.3.1. The GLS LCE Staff will coordinate review of the field activity’s pre-solicitation

acquisition documents among GLS CRB analysts and members, and other codes as necessary. The field activity, in turn, will provide one point of contact to coordinate review and responses to comments.

2.3.3.2. The GLS review is intended to ensure that the acquisition documents support and achieve the customer’s objectives and is based on the concept of operations and acquisition strategy. It will also include evaluation and approval of any required sole-source justification, deviation, D&F, bundling or consolidation memorandum, proposed clause(s), and special contract provision(s).

2.3.3.3. GLS review will focus on, but not be limited to, the following areas:2.3.3.3.1. The formal acquisition strategy, which is required for a proposed service

contract, will explain the incentive structure, as well as how it motivates the contractor(s) to provide the required support so as to meet or exceed the customer’s expectations and objectives for the procurement, based on the customer’s Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). If more than one incentive is planned for a contract, the strategy will explain how the incentives complement each other and ensure the incentives will not conflict.

2.3.3.3.2. The acquisition plan will document the approved strategy. An acquisition plan shall be prepared in accordance with FAR 7.105 and DFARS 207.105. The plan will include a summary of the initiative, scope, customers, estimated value, competition aspects, contract type, plan of action and milestones (POA&M), evaluation strategy, method and level of monitoring contract performance, and exit criteria. The plan will address efforts to enhance competition, fair opportunity ordering procedures (if applicable), and preference for multiple awards. Additionally, the plan must address socio-economic issues,

11

i.e., any impact on small business, and, if applicable, bundling or consolidation, the latter to be supported by an analysis or justification.

2.3.3.3.3. The estimated maximum solicitation and contract value will include a sufficient level of detail on potential costs and prices, for the base period and all option periods, with explanatory narrative to support the estimate and how it was derived. If applicable, the minimum guarantee and the rationale for establishment. A stand-alone document to be titled the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE), signed and dated by the requiring activity is preferred; otherwise, the detail must be incorporated in a formal acquisition document, such as the acquisition plan.

2.3.3.3.4. The solicitation’s and resulting contract’s performance metrics must be designed to measure the contractor’s success toward achieving the customer’s desired outcomes for the procurement. Metrics for tracking contract performance must be tied to customer KPIs, based on Government-generated data, and tracked to the maximum extent practical in an electronic system. Further, the contract line item number (CLIN) structure will facilitate meeting the customer’s objectives.

2.3.3.3.5. Whether the requirements are clearly defined and are stated in performance-based terms.

2.3.3.3.6. Whether the performance-based characteristics directly tie to the customer’s objectives and KPIs.

2.3.3.3.7. Whether the critical customer objectives and KPIs are reflected in the evaluation criteria.

2.3.3.3.8. Whether there is a multi-functional support cadre in place or planned to manage the contract. (The support cadre should include trained and qualified contracting officer representatives.)

2.3.3.3.9. Whether the acquisition team developed a tailored quality assurance surveillance plan to monitor contractor performance.

2.3.3.3.10. The extent to which the acquisition team will rely on support contractors to perform functions that are closely associated with inherently governmental functions and have required determinations been appropriately executed.

2.3.3.3.11. If one contractor will provide oversight for another contractor or direct work to another contractor, what measures are planned or have been taken to reduce or eliminate potential organizational conflicts of interest.

2.3.3.3.12. Whether the acquisition team has a sufficient number of experienced, trained/qualified personnel dedicated and assigned to accomplish the source selection. (This includes whether the contracting officer or source selection authority has a plan to provide training to the source selection evaluation team.)

2.3.3.3.13. Whether the contract type is appropriate -- Does the risk analysis address and support the recommendations of contract type, pricing structure, type of source selection?

2.3.3.3.14. Where there are special contract requirements, are they consistent with law, regulation and other terms of the solicitation?

12

2.3.3.3.15. Has the acquisition team mapped Section L to Section M and the Source Selection Plan to ensure consistency throughout.

2.3.3.3.16. Whether minimum thresholds and maximum performance objectives are clearly defined.

2.3.3.3.17. Whether the solicitation’s requirements are stated in certain/specific terms such that the evaluators will be able to assess whether the offeror meets or exceeds a particular outcome.

2.3.3.3.18. Whether the development of the RFP uncovered anything the acquisition team would do differently if they had it to do it over again—any lessons learned.

2.3.3.3.19. Whether the Review team observed any unique practices, procedures, techniques, clauses or other approaches that should be considered as a candidate for a best practice.

2.3.4.Conduct of the Phase I CRB: After document review, the GLS Phase I CRB will be conducted. However, all pre-solicitation documents must have first been reviewed by GLS and all significant comments must have been resolved by the FLC through written response and/or document revision and submitted to GLS. Significant revisions must additionally reflect CCO concurrence.

2.3.4.1. For the Phase I CRB, the PCO will lead the discussion using the following information in briefing chart format placing emphasis on the documentation and review.

2.3.4.1.1. If an ASRP was conducted, summarize the briefing previously provided with the approval granted and conditions, if any, with resolution.

2.3.4.1.2. Acquisition Strategy: Describe how the strategy will meet the customer’s objectives and desired outcomes. Identify the contract type best suited to the identified acquisition strategy; also outline the contract administration plan. Identify or outline socio-economic considerations, as well as any bundling and consolidation. Identify or outline challenges, risks, and issues.

2.3.4.1.3. Acquisition Documents: List documents submitted by the FLC for GLS review and identify those documents requiring approval by the LCE, e.g., a J&A for other than full and open competition.

2.3.4.1.4. Procurement Timeline: Identify key target dates for the procurement. Identify transition concerns, including any need for a bridge contract or contract extension. Indicate if a NAVSUP, Navy, or DPAP review is required and include time to accommodate the reviews.

2.3.4.2. Upon satisfactory resolution by the FLC of any issues noted on the pre-solicitation documentation submitted, the CRB Chairperson will indicate approval to release the solicitation, which will be sent in writing to the CCO.

13

2.4. PHASE II CRB2.4.1.Based on approval from the Phase I CRB for the solicitation, receipt of initial offers, and

initial evaluations, the FLC will develop, finalize, and submit the following pre-negotiation documents to the GLS at least two (2) weeks prior to the anticipated opening of discussions.

2.4.2.CRB Documents: All source selection information and/or documents shall be marked as “Source Selection Information --- see FAR 2.101 and 3.104.” Documents shall be submitted in editable electronic form and posted to a collaboration room by the FLC. Documents submitted to GLS shall reflect evidence of review and coordination with Counsel and concurrence by the CCO.

2.4.2.1. Pre-business clearance.2.4.2.2. Interim Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) report, to include the interim

Technical Evaluation Board and Cost/Price Analysis Panel reports.2.4.2.3. DCAA audit(s) as applicable.2.4.2.4. Pre-award Survey(s), as applicable.2.4.2.5. Solicitation with amendments.2.4.2.6. All communications with offerors.2.4.2.7. Competitive range determination, if applicable.2.4.2.8. Approved FLC contract review board minutes or evidence of local review.

2.4.3.GLS review of the pre-negotiation documents:2.4.3.1. The GLS LCE Staff will coordinate review of the field activity’s pre-negotiation

documents among GLS CRB analysts and members, and other codes as necessary. The field activity, in turn, will provide one point of contact to coordinate review and responses to comments.

2.4.3.2. The GLS review is intended to ensure that the acquisition evaluations have been conducted in accordance with the applicable source selection documents.

2.4.3.3. GLS review will focus on, but not be limited to, the following areas:2.4.3.3.1. Whether the evaluation team followed/complied with Sections L and M

of the RFP, the Source Selection Evaluation Guide (if used), and Source Selection Plan.

2.4.3.3.2. Whether there was consistency and fairness in evaluating each offer against Section M (evaluation criteria).

2.4.3.3.3. Whether there was consistency in applying the ratings across the offerors.

2.4.3.3.4. Whether or not any clarifications and/or communications occurred and if so, whether they were appropriate.

2.4.3.3.5. Whether the evaluation team applied any standards or undisclosed evaluation criteria to their evaluation of proposals or past performance.

2.4.3.3.6. Whether the supporting documentation adequately describes the basis and justification for the ratings and memorializes the details of the evaluations, including any deficiencies, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and adverse past performance.

14

2.4.3.3.7. Whether there were any assumptions made during the evaluation process that influenced the offeror’s rating and if so, whether they were appropriate or acceptable.

2.4.3.3.8. Whether the competitive range determination, if applicable, is adequately and accurately documented, in particular for those offerors to be excluded from the competitive range.

2.4.3.3.9. Whether the proposed discussions with each offeror will clearly address the issues that resulted in any unacceptable/red or marginal/yellow ratings.

2.4.3.3.10. Whether during the course of proposal evaluation, if there was anything the acquisition team would do differently if they had it to do it over again. This includes whether there were any solicitation amendments that might indicate something that could have been addressed before the formal RFP was issued?

2.4.3.3.11. Whether the Review team observed any unique practices, procedures, techniques, clauses or other approaches that should be considered as a candidate for a best practice.

2.4.3.3.12. For non-competitive actions:2.4.3.3.12.1. Whether the documentation addresses the results of cost and/or

price analysis.2.4.3.3.12.2. Whether the points of negotiation are well documented.2.4.3.3.12.3. Whether the documentation addresses profit/fee and the

attendant risk.2.4.3.4. For the Phase II CRB, the PCO will lead the discussion using the following

information in briefing chart format, which is similar to that for the Phase I CRB, however, emphasis will be placed on initial evaluations.

2.4.3.4.1. Background of the acquisition.2.4.3.4.2. Changes since Phase I approval.2.4.3.4.3. Updated acquisition POA&M.2.4.3.4.4. Summary of the offers received, the initial evaluations, and the proposed

discussions.2.4.3.5. Upon satisfactory resolution by the FLC of any issues noted by the Phase II

CRB, the CRB Chairperson will approve the pre-business clearance, thereby indicating approval to open negotiations.

2.5. PHASE II(a) Peer Review2.5.1.This is a Peer Review phase only. No GLS CRB is conducted at this point in the

acquisition. This phase does not apply if the acquisition is below the Peer Review threshold.

2.5.2.Peer Review documents: The FLC will develop, finalize, and submit the following negotiation documents to the Peer Review Team at least two (2) weeks prior to the anticipated request for Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs). All source selection information

15

and/or documents shall be marked as “Source Selection Information --- see FAR 2.101 and 3.104.” Documents shall be submitted in editable electronic form and posted to a collaboration room by the FLC. The documents shall reflect evidence of review and coordination with the field activity’s Counsel with concurrence by the CCO.

2.5.2.1. Pre-business clearance.2.5.2.2. Interim Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) report, to include the interim

Technical Evaluation Board and Cost/Price Analysis Panel reports.2.5.2.3. DCAA audit(s) as applicable.2.5.2.4. Pre-award Survey(s) as applicable.2.5.2.5. Solicitation with amendments.2.5.2.6. All communications with offerors.2.5.2.7. Competitive range determination, if applicable.2.5.2.8. Approved FLC board minutes or evidence of local review.

2.5.3.The Peer Review is intended to ensure that the acquisition evaluations have been conducted in accordance with the applicable source selection documents and that meaningful discussions have been conducted with all offerors in the competitive range.

2.5.4. The Peer Review will focus on but not be limited to the following areas:2.5.4.1.1. Whether the evaluation team followed/complied with Sections L and M

of the RFP, the Source Selection Evaluation Guide (if used), and Source Selection Plan.

2.5.4.1.2. Whether there was consistency and fairness in evaluating each offer against Section M (evaluation criteria).

2.5.4.1.3. Whether there was consistency in applying the ratings across the offerors.

2.5.4.1.4. Whether or not any clarifications or communications occurred and if so, whether they were appropriate.

2.5.4.1.5. Whether meaningful and open communications were conducted in which the offeror and government clearly understood each other’s position and assumptions. (It is not sufficient to handle discussions in a way that it is only for the benefit of the government to understand the offeror’s proposal.)

2.5.4.1.6. Whether the evaluation team applied any standards or undisclosed evaluation criteria to their evaluation of proposals or past performance.

2.5.4.1.7. Whether the documentation memorializes deficiencies, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and adverse past performance described in the evaluation notices.

2.5.4.1.8. Whether assumptions are addressed as being appropriate or acceptable.2.5.4.1.9. Whether the supporting documentation describes the details of the

evaluations.2.5.4.1.10. Whether the discussion process utilized achieve meaningful and

transparent communications and if it was documented.2.5.4.1.11. Whether the supporting documentation adequately describes the basis

and justification for the ratings.

16

2.5.4.1.12. Whether the Interim Ratings prior to final evaluation support the degree of discussions held with each offeror? (e.g., there is no misunderstanding by the offeror and GAO that the Contracting Officer clearly discussed the issues that resulted in any unacceptable/red or marginal/yellow ratings.)

2.5.4.1.13. Whether the competitive range determination is adequately and accurately documented.

2.5.4.1.14. Whether the content of the documentation bring the SSA up to date from the approval of the SSP, to establishment of the comptetive range, to completion of meaningful discussions.

2.5.4.1.15. Whether the Contracting Officer clearly articulated his or her rationale in instances where interim ratings were not released prior to Final Proposal Revision requests.

2.5.4.1.16. Whether the documentation supports the recommendation to remove an offeror’s proposal from the competitive range.

2.5.4.1.17. Whether during the course of proposal evaluation and conducting discussions, if there was anything the acquisition team would do differently if they had it to do it over again. This includes whether there were any solicitation amendments that might indicate something that could have been addressed before the formal RFP was issued.

2.5.4.1.18. Whether the Review team observed any unique practices, procedures, techniques, clauses or other approaches that should be considered as a candidate for a best practice.

2.5.4.1.19. For non-competitive actions:2.5.4.1.19.1. Whether the documentation addresses the results of cost and/or

price analysis.2.5.4.1.19.2. Whether the points of negotiation are well documented.2.5.4.1.19.3. Whether the documentation addresses profit/fee and the

attendant risk.2.5.5. For the Phase II(a) Peer Review, the PCO will lead the discussion using the following

information in briefing chart format, which is similar to that for the Phase II CRB, however, emphasis will be placed on initial evaluations and discussions.

2.5.5.1. Background of the acquisition.2.5.5.2. Changes since Phase I approval.2.5.5.3. Updated acquisition POA&M.2.5.5.4. Summary of the offers received, the initial evaluations, discussions conducted,

and competitive range determination, as applicable.2.5.6. The contracting officer must include the Peer Review report in the contract file. In

addition, the contracting officer must document, in the contract file prior to contract award, disposition of all Peer Review team recommendations. The disposition documentation may take the form of a memorandum for the record.

2.6. PHASE III CRB

17

2.6.1.Based on the approval from the Phase II CRB to hold discussions, the FLC will develop, finalize, and submit the following source selection decision documents to GLS at least two (2) weeks prior to the anticipated award of the contract(s).

2.6.2.CRB documents: All source selection information and/or documents shall be marked as “Source Selection Information --- see FAR 2.101 and 3.104.” Documents shall be submitted in editable electronic form and posted to a collaboration room by the FLC. Documents submitted to GLS shall reflect evidence of review and coordination with Counsel and concurrence by the CCO. If a peer review is required, the same documents will also be submitted to the identified peer reviewers at the same time.

2.6.2.1. Post business clearance.2.6.2.2. The Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) with the report from the

SSEB.2.6.2.3. All communications with offerors.2.6.2.4. Draft copy of the contract(s) to be awarded.2.6.2.5. Approved FLC contract review board minutes or evidence of local review.

2.6.3.GLS review of the source selection documents:2.6.3.1. The GLS LCE Staff will coordinate review of the field activity’s pre-solicitation

acquisition documents among GLS CRB analysts and members, and other codes as necessary. The field activity, in turn, will provide one point of contact to coordinate review and responses to comments.

2.6.3.2. The GLS review is intended to ensure that the acquisition evaluation has been conducted in accordance with the applicable source selection documents and that the evaluation and source selection decision is fully documented.

2.6.3.3. GLS review will focus on, but not be limited to, the following areas:2.6.3.3.1. Whether the SSEB completed proposal evaluations and incorporated the

information provided through discussions and FPRs in accordance with section M.

2.6.3.3.2. Whether the Proposal Analysis Report (PAR) (or similar document) is reflective of the evaluations and justification documents.

2.6.3.3.3. Whether the SSDD is reflective of the SSA’s integrated assessment and own personal decision leading to the selection of a contractor(s).

2.6.3.3.4. Whether the documentation clearly summarizes and justifies the evaluation results?

2.6.3.3.5. Where a Proposal Analysis Report is not used, whether the documentation contains adequate detail of the evaluation results and a comparative analysis (cost/price, past performance, mission capability, proposal risk, and a source selection recommendation) of the competitive offers.

2.6.3.3.6. Whether the information in the documentation can be used, as applicable, for the SSDD.

2.6.3.3.7. Whether the acquisition team articulated to the Review team their decisions/justifications.

18

2.6.3.3.8. Whether or not in the course of final proposal evaluation and in preparing to execute and document the award decision, if there is anything the acquisition team would do differently if they had it to do it over again.

2.6.3.3.9. Whether the Peer Review team observed any unique practices, procedures, techniques, clauses or other approaches that should be considered as a candidate for a best practice?

2.6.3.4. For the Phase III CRB, the PCO will lead the discussion using the following information in briefing chart format, which is similar to that for the Phase II CRB; however, emphasis will be placed on the final evaluations and the source selection decision.

2.6.3.4.1. Background of the acquisition.2.6.3.4.2. Changes since Phase II approval.2.6.3.4.3. Updated acquisition POA&M.2.6.3.4.4. Summary of the FPRs, the final evaluations, and source selection

decision.2.6.3.5. Upon satisfactory resolution by the FLC of any issues noted by the Phase III

CRB, the CRB Chairperson will approve the post-business clearance, thereby indicating approval of the source selection decision.

GCH PGI 13.3 - Use of Reverse AuctionsAs specified in GCH 13.3 concerning the use of Reverse Auctions, the following procedures will be used within the NAVSUP GLS Enterprise.

3. FedBid’s Buyer-Driven Online Marketplace can be accessed at www.FedBid.com . This is a web-based tool to assist contracting officers in competing purchase or delivery orders for commercial off-the-shelf supplies and gauging savings against an Independent Government Estimate (IGE).

4. While training is available from the FedBid website, to make this experience as convenient and effective as possible, FLC contracting offices should coordinate necessary initial training through FLC Norfolk, POC Mr. David Felling, David.Felling@navy.mil.

19

WAIVER FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO USE REVERSE AUCTIONS FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF COMMERCIAL SUPPLIES UNDER THE SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION THRESHOLD

Document Number: _____________________ Customer: ___________________________

Description of the requirement: _________________________________________________

Reason for waiver:

Item is available under an existing contract vehicle with favorable terms and conditions

Existing contract to be used: __________________________________________

Exception to the fair opportunity to compete available under FASA

Urgency

Only one capable source

Logical follow-on

Minimum guarantee

Urgency/Lead Time: The Required Delivery Date (RDD) does not provide adequate time to

set up and run a reverse auction. RDD: __________________

Other: _________________________________________________________________

Prepared by: ________________________(Contract Specialist) Date: ______________

Approved by: _______________________(Contracting Officer) Date: ______________

20