PowerPoint PresentationDefense Acquisition University
Thank you for your attendance
CON 280: Day 1, v 3.0 Page 1
Defense Acquisition University
[email protected]
& READY to respond (WAR)
Start
End
ENs
• Identifying risks are the key to successful source
selections
• Linking what is evaluated to what is asked • Aligning
standardized rating definitions to
what you say and how you say it
Start
End
Lesser Importance of Non-Cost Factors Greater
FAR part 15.101, FAR subpart 15.3, as supplemented Tradeoff Source
Selection Process
described in DoD Source Selection Procedures
Oh, the possibilities!
Selection Process described in DoD Source Selection
Procedures, Appendix A
Technical Technical Risk
Low Price
Best-Value Continuum – One of the Main Challenges is Assessing
Risk
CON 280: Day 1, v 3.0 Page 5
Identifying Risks are Key to Successful Source Selections: Source
Selection is About Risk Mitigation
DAU Media – Risk Refresher:
https://media.dau.edu/media/1_lhh7bgim
WHAT DO GOVERNMENT IPTS DO TO MITIGATE RISK?
6
Market Research
CON 280: Day 1, v 3.0 Page 7
• Historicals – held within Government • Buyer’s Corporate
Knowledge • DCMA/DCAA • Past Performance – focused on quality
• Recency, timeliness & relevance • Past Experience – focused
on similarity
• Similarity to scope, magnitude & complexity • Pre Site Visits
• RFI White Papers
• Socio-economic set aside • Technical innovative ideas •
Commercial Availability
• Industry Days • Draft PWS/SOW/PSECS
Sources for Identifying Risk
• The Naval Sea Logistics Center (NSLC), Detachment Portsmouth ...
to collect contractor quality, delivery, and performance data
• Historicals • Supplier performance data (PEDREP)
• Product Quality Deficiency Reports – PQDR • Supply Discrepancy
Reports – SDR • Material Inspection Records – MIR • Contract Award
Data – CAD • Supplier Audits • Supplier Survey Data •
Non–Conforming Materials • Premature Material Failures
• FAPIIS - CPARs • Federal Awardee Performance & Integrity
Information System • Contract Performance Assessment Reporting
System
• CPARS.gov is now the official source for past performance
information
Sources for Identifying Risk
5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5
Li ke
lih oo
• Performance/Quality • Schedule/Delivery • Cost/Price
CON 280: Day 1, v 3.0 Page 10
RISK RISK MITIGATION
High % turnover of direct labor during life of contract
Contractor lacks right mix of skill sets & staffing during life
of Contract
Performance Risk Examples & a Means to Mitigate
CON 280: Day 1, v 3.0 Page 11
RISK RISK MITIGATION “Transition-In” Key Labor skill set not hired
to start Day 1 or do not have security clearance in- hand
Flawed Integrated Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M)
Schedule Risk Examples & a Means to Mitigate
RISK, ISSUE AND OPPORTUNITY MANAGEMENT GUIDE, JANUARY 2017
12
CON 280: Day 1, v 3.0 Page 13
PWS Task Section L Section M Required/ desired Deliverables Offeror
is to
*thoroughly demonstrate how it will meet (or exceed) what RFP
requires/desires
Government is to evaluate how risk is mitigated by assessing:
Strengths Weaknesses Significant
Weaknesses Deficiencies
Linking What is Evaluated to What is Asked - Section C, L and
M
CON 280: Day 1, v 3.0 Page 14
PWS Task Section L Section M Help Desk The Offeror shall
propose and define labor category:
The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s labor category
identified that addresses:
Help Desk: The Contractor shall provide technically qualified
personnel with the ability to…(outcomes, deliverables, aka what
success looks like)
• R&R • KSA…Certs or
other • FTE(s) hours • Education / Years
of experience
abilities, certifications, or any other characteristic(s) required
for the position
• Proposed FTE(s) hours • Education requirements /
Years of relative work experience
Section C, L and M: Working Together Like Hand in Glove to Solicit,
Review and Evaluate Risk
Stand, Stretch, Breathe
Exercise Instructions – Read the consensus findings and determine
from the narrative what is the adjectival rating (AJ) and risk
rating (R)
CON 280: Day 1, v 3.0 Page 18
Technical Factor - Maintenance: Battery Life
ADJECTIVAL RATING
/ RISK RATING
Weaknesses, Deficiencies noted by where in Government’s RFP
to where in the Offeror’s Proposal
AR – Adjectival Rating R- Risk
Linking what is evaluated to what is asked and Aligning DoD rating
definitions to what you say and how you say it
CON 280: Day 1, v 3.0 Page 19
The Offeror’s proposal conveyed qualifying statements that their
Flux Capacitor’s battery life shall meet the Government’s
Performance Specification Attachment 3, paragraph 2.1.1 “Mean time
to failure” threshold of 1,000 charges. Offeror’s proposal
indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the
requirement. Although the Proposal contains a significant weakness,
special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will
likely be able to overcome difficulties thus the Risk to the
Government is moderate. The flaw that appreciably increases the
risk of unsuccessful contract performance (i.e., Significant
Weakness) identified (Proposal pg. 8, sec 2.23) is the testing
sample size that supported Offeror’s ability to meet the
Government’s requirement was limited to 25 units and units were not
tested in all temperature environments of the intended use.
AJ – ; R –
CON 280: Day 1, v 3.0 Page 20
ADJECTIVAL RATING
/ RISK RATING
Weaknesses, Deficiencies noted by where in Government’s RFP
to where in the Offeror’s Proposal
AR – Adjectival Rating R- Risk
Linking what is evaluated to what is asked and Aligning rating
definitions to what you say and how you say it
Technical Factor Ratings
CON 280: Day 1, v 3.0 Page 21
• A Weakness is defined as a flaw in the proposal that increases
the risk of unsuccessful contract performance
• A Significant Weakness is defined as a flaw that appreciably
increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance
• A Strength is defined as an aspect of an offeror’s proposal that
has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability
requirements in a way that is advantageous to the Government during
contract performance.
• A Deficiency is defined as a material failure of a proposal to
meet a Government requirement, or a combination of significant
weaknesses, in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful
contract performance to an unacceptable level.
Aligning Federal Regulation Rating Definitions to What You Say and
How You Say It
CON 280: Day 1, v 3.0 Page 22
Rating Description Low
Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to
cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of
performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government
monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.
Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of
weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule,
increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor
emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to
overcome difficulties.
Risk Description Ratings
Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of
weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of
schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely
to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis
and close Government monitoring.
Proposal contains a material failure or combination of significant
weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to
an unacceptable level.
CON 280: Day 1, v 3.0 Page 23
DoD METHODOLOGY 2: COMBINED Technical/Risk Ratings
23
Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an
exceptional approach and understanding of the
requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of
unsuccessful performance is low.
Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and
understanding of the requirements and contains at least one
strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to
moderate.
Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an
adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk
of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.
Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach
and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful
performance is high.
Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the
solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies and/or
risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is
unawardable.
CON 280: Day 1, v 3.0 Page 24
DoD METHODOLOGY 2: COMBINED Technical/Risk Ratings
24
Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an
exceptional approach and understanding of the
requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of
unsuccessful performance is low.
Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and
understanding of the requirements and contains at least one
strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to
moderate.
Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an
adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk
of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.
Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach
and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful
performance is high.
Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the
solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies and/or
risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is
unawardable.
Outstanding - Exceptional approach; Contains Multiple
Strengths
Good – thorough approach; Contains at least one Strength
Acceptable – Adequate approach; No mention of definitions (found in
Technical Risk rating)
Marginal - Not demonstrated an adequate approach; No mention of
definitions (found in Technical Risk rating)
Stand, Stretch, Breathe
CON 280: Day 1, v 3.0 Page 26
What would you look for in a narrative that would support an
Adjectival Rating of Good and a Risk Rating of Moderate?
Breaking It Down
Adjectival Rating – Good: Proposal indicates a thorough approach
and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one
strength
Risk Rating – Moderate: Proposal contains a significant weakness or
combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of
schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special
contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be
able to overcome difficulties.
CON 280: Day 1, v 3.0 Page 28
A Strength is defined as an aspect of an offeror’s proposal that
has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability
requirements in a way that is advantageous to the Government during
contract performance.
A Significant Weakness is defined as a flaw that appreciably
increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance
A Weakness is defined as a flaw in the proposal that increases the
risk of unsuccessful contract performance
CON 280: Day 1, v 3.0 Page 29
A Strength is defined as an aspect of an offeror’s proposal that
has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability
requirements in a way that is advantageous to the Government during
contract performance.
A Significant Weakness is defined as a flaw that appreciably
increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance
A Weakness is defined as a flaw in the proposal that increases the
risk of unsuccessful contract performance
Quantify: Meets or Exceeds RFP specified XYZ Objectives Qualify:
RFP seeks innovative approach to XYZ
CON 280: Day 1, v 3.0 Page 30
Webcast Summary: Effectively Evaluating Risk through Factors
• Source development is a research (a systematic
investigation)
• Source selection is a process (a set of actions)
• Effective risk understanding identifies the right evaluation
measures (Section M)
• Ratings are written with words standardized for us that have
meaning with purpose
CON 280: Day 1, v 3.0 Page 31
Conclusions / Wrap Up / Resources
• Web Resources / tools to apply back in the office • Risk
Mitigation Plan Development:
https://www.dau.edu/cop/risk/Lists/Tools/DispForm.aspx?ID =2
• CLM 017 Risk Management
https://icatalog.dau.edu/onlinecatalog/courses.aspx?crs_id=2
35
Our Focus: Step TWO
www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/sa/training_safipt.html
CON 280: Day 1, v 3.0 Page 34
Training Courses CLC 028: Past Performance Information FAC 019:
FAPIIS (Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information
System) Training FAC 060: Acquisition Challenge Past Performance
FCL-A-0407: Past Performance Videos The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) and the American Council for Technology and Industry
Advisory Council (ACT-IAC) have collaborated on a series of
acquisition-based presentations called “Lifting the Curtain.” The
"Lifting the Curtain" Past Performance Acquisition Seminar offers
valuable insight and useful information on the purpose, selection,
and evaluation of past performance information that is beneficial
and applicable to both government and industry acquisition
professional. OFPP, in coordination with FAI, conducted an
Acquisition Seminar, entitled Past Performance: Key Elements and
Best Practices for Reporting Timely and Quality Evaluations, that
breaks down the guidance found in the OFPP memos and offers many
helpful tools and tips on how to most effectively evaluate and use
past performance information. Other Training Resources - CPARS
Training Materials - https://www.cpars.gov/webtrain_auto.htm
CON 280: Day 1, v 3.0 Page 36
• A Weakness is defined as a flaw in the proposal that increases
the risk of unsuccessful contract performance
• A Significant Weakness is defined as a flaw that appreciably
increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance
• A Strength is defined as an aspect of an offeror’s proposal that
has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability
requirements in a way that is advantageous to the Government during
contract performance.
• A Deficiency is defined as a material failure of a proposal to
meet a Government requirement, or a combination of significant
weaknesses, in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful
contract performance to an unacceptable level.
Aligning Federal Regulation Rating Definitions to What You Say and
How You Say It
CON 280: Day 1, v 3.0 Page 37
Rating Description Low
Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to
cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of
performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government
monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.
Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of
weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule,
increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor
emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to
overcome difficulties.
Risk Description Ratings
Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of
weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of
schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely
to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis
and close Government monitoring.
Proposal contains a material failure or combination of significant
weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to
an unacceptable level.
CON 280: Day 1, v 3.0 Page 38
DoD METHODOLOGY 2: COMBINED Technical/Risk Ratings
38
Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an
exceptional approach and understanding of the
requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of
unsuccessful performance is low.
Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and
understanding of the requirements and contains at least one
strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to
moderate.
Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an
adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk
of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.
Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach
and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful
performance is high.
Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the
solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies and/or
risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is
unawardable.
CON 280: Day 1, v 3.0 Page 39
The Offeror’s proposal conveyed qualifying statements that their
Flux Capacitor’s battery life shall meet the Government’s
Performance Specification Attachment 3, paragraph 2.1.1 “Mean time
to failure” threshold of 1,000 charges. Offeror’s proposal
indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the
requirement. Although the Proposal contains a significant weakness,
special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will
likely be able to overcome difficulties thus the Risk to the
Government is moderate. The flaw that appreciably increases the
risk of unsuccessful contract performance (i.e., Significant
Weakness) identified (Proposal pg. 8, sec 2.23) is the testing
sample size that supported Offeror’s ability to meet the
Government’s requirement was limited to 25 units and units were not
tested in all temperature environments of the intended use.
AJ – ; R –
Slide Number 1
Best-Value Continuum – One of the Main Challenges is Assessing
Risk
Identifying Risks are Key to Successful Source Selections: Source
Selection is About Risk Mitigation
What Do Government IPTsDo To MITIGATE Risk?
Sources for Identifying Risk
Sources for Identifying Risk
Risk, Issue and Opportunity Management Guide, January 2017
Linking What is Evaluated to What is Asked - Section C, L and
M
Section C, L and M: Working Together Like Hand in Glove to Solicit,
Review and Evaluate Risk
Slide Number 16
Slide Number 17
Slide Number 18
Technical Factor Ratings
Aligning Federal Regulation Rating Definitions to What You Say and
How You Say It
Risk Description Ratings
Slide Number 26
Breaking It Down
Slide Number 28
Slide Number 29
Slide Number 30
Conclusions / Wrap Up / Resources
Our Focus: Step TWO
Additional Training & Tools
Additional Training & Tools
Slide Number 36
Aligning Federal Regulation Rating Definitions to What You Say and
How You Say It
Risk Description Ratings
Technical Factor – Maintenance: Battery Life
