Facilitators: David Hart, Lynn Moad
· Jim Marshal, San Antonio, Proposal Support
· Ron Hartke, Ardent 8a
· Dan Fry, First Division Consulting, Inc 8a
o Headed to SOFIC Conference in Tampa http://www.sofic.org/Pages/Default.aspx
· Steve Hannaford, Illumination Works
· Minda Moore, Advratech (KLSS acquired by Advratech)
· Billy Grill, Rebel Marketing
o Just launch AFRL SB Hub Website
o AFRL Collider June 19
o Overview of AFRL SB Hub
· Bob Fudge, Evanhoe
o IOT Summit next Tuesday
o Planning a Dayton Local AFIT IOT event in Oct-Dec
o RFID in Aerospace and Defense, in Long Beach, 19-20 Oct 2016
· Lynn Moad, LBM Consulting
o WID Scholarship event last night
o Mary Haley, establishing a database of small companies.
· Rick Reed, SABLE Systems WOSB
o Logistics IT across DoD
· Keith Harvey, TACG – ANC Tribal 8a
o Logistics IT across DoD and Fed
o AFLCMC driving an acquisition guide
o CIOSP3 Updates – New Protests
o HHS May 25, 2016 2016 "Getting Back 2 Business" Fairfax, VA Small Business Community Outreach Event: Learn how to conduct business with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Join Government employees, the Small Business Administration (SBA) and their resource partners, and large federal contractors for workshops and matchmaking. Register for this event! Register for this event!
o HHS June 16, 2016 9:00 am - 4:00 pm Vendor Outreach Session Hubert Humphrey Building Great Hall 200 Independence Ave, SW Washington, DC 20201 Meet with HHS Small Business Specialists from across the Department to discuss your capabilities and procurement opportunities. Before attending, be sure to review: Get Ready for the Vendor Outreach Sessions
oGet Ready for the Vendor Outreach Sessions
· John Joyce, Specpro ANC 8a (Bristol Bay)
o John focuses on 711th HPW
· Dave Dodds, ICS
o Seeking Tempest qualified companies to partner with
· David Hart, Segue Technologies, firstname.lastname@example.org
o Con-IT Industry Day
o Montgomery IT Summit (MITS) 2016 - May 24-25 (Golf on May 23) http://www.afceamontgomery.org/MITS
· St. Louis Fast Rope Happenings
o David Wade, Lockheed Martin, Will host and talk about merger with Leidos at next meeting.
o NDTA Golf Outing May 6 at The Orchards.
o John “Mo” Verling, Paragon, email@example.com
o Leslie Lindauer, Tech Guard, firstname.lastname@example.org
o Connie Crome, CSRA, email@example.com
o AFCEA Mid-America Cyber Symposium, June 28-29
o Carla McMullen, TCI, firstname.lastname@example.org - Booth at AFCEA Mid America Conference. June 17th TCI Golf Charity Fundraiser at Scott AFB – benefitting Friends of Military Families, seeking sponsors
o Wes Nolden, TCI, email@example.com
o Robert Zapata, Diligent Consulting, firstname.lastname@example.org, San Antonio based Annual AFCEA Alamo ACE Conference,
o Don Spain, MacAulay-Brown (Mac-B), email@example.com
New DoD Source Selection Procedures: New Guidance on Tradeoffs and LPTAs
By Thomas Barletta, Paul Hurst & Michael Mutek of Steptoe & Johnson LLP
The Department of Defense (DoD) released its new Source Selection Procedures (Procedures) on March 31, 2016, which can be found here. The Procedures became effective April 1, 2016, and rescind the Source Selection Procedures issued on March 4, 2011 (although source selection plans approved prior to May 1, 2016 may continue to use the 2011 Procedures).
The new Procedures address certain Better Buying Power (BBP) initiatives. Originally launched in 2010, and now in its third iteration, BBP reflects fundamental acquisition principles to achieve greater efficiencies through affordability, cost control, elimination of bureaucracy, and competition. DoD explains that the new Procedures are consistent with the BPP initiatives and expand on both the tradeoff and lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures.
One of the more significant changes is the addition of a new Value Adjusted Total Evaluated Price (VATEP) tradeoff technique. As explained below, this new technique permits DoD to assign a “monetary value” to certain technical enhancements in excess of the minimum requirements, in an effort to remove some subjectivity out of the best value tradeoff. The Procedures also include new guidance on the appropriate use of LPTA, indicating that those procedures should not be used when standards of performance or quality are subjective.
Applicability to FAR Part 15 Negotiated, Competitive Acquisitions - The Procedures address competitively negotiated source selections and are applicable to all acquisitions conducted as part of a major system acquisition program, as defined in FAR 2.101, and competitively negotiated FAR Part 15 acquisitions with an estimated value greater than $10 million. Although Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) Subpart 215.3 has not been updated to cite the new Procedures, it currently provides that DoD agencies “shall follow the principles and procedures” set forth in DoD’s Source Selection Procedures memorandum “when conducting negotiated, competitive acquisitions utilizing FAR part 15 procedures.”
Expands Tradeoff Techniques - FAR 15.101-1 already provides for the use of a tradeoff source selection process, permitting tradeoffs between cost/price and non-cost factors. The new Procedures address two specific tradeoff techniques: “Subjective Tradeoff and Value Adjusted Total Evaluated Price (VATEP) Tradeoff”:
· First, the Subjective Tradeoff Process provides for the RFP to identify all evaluation factors and significant subfactors that will affect contract award by clearly stating their relative importance in the solicitation (FAR 15.204-5(c)).
· Second, the VATEP process provides for the RFP to define both threshold (minimum) and objective (maximum) performance and capabilities and to state the percentage price increase or dollar amount that the US Government is willing to pay for measureable levels of performance between the minimum and maximum criteria.
These tradeoff techniques reflect the BBP 3.0 initiative to provide clear best value definitions to industry. This initiative builds on efforts to provide industry with information on the value, in monetary terms, of higher levels of performance above minimally acceptable or threshold levels. According to BBP 3.0, without this information, “the default industry position will be to bid to the lowest acceptable level of performance.” By providing this additional information, industry should know what the competitive effect of offering higher performance will be and bid accordingly. Appendix B suggests that one of the benefits is that offerors may be more likely to propose innovative solutions which provide higher performance and capability if it is clear to them what value the end user places on exceeding the threshold or minimum performance or capability requirements and how exceeding the threshold will influence the evaluated cost/price.
Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) - The 2016 Procedures also provide additional guidance on the appropriate use of the LPTA Source Selection Process (in Appendix C). The Procedures, for example, continue to provide that the LPTA source selection process is appropriate when best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price and that this process may be used where the government places no value on exceeding threshold technical or performance requirements.
Both the 2011 and 2016 Procedures state that the appropriate use of LPTA includes “acquisitions of commercial or non-complex services or supplies which are clearly . . . defined,” but the 2016 Procedures add that those services and supplies also must be “objectively defined.” (Emphasis added.) When using LPTA, the Procedures also add that the solicitation “must clearly describe the minimum requirements that will be used to determine the acceptability of the proposal” and that “[w]ell-defined standards of performance and quality of services must be available to support the use of LPTA.” Finally, the new Procedures include affirmative directions for situations when LPTA should not be used: “When standards of performance and quality are subjective, or the Government places value on higher quality or performance, another approach should be used,” and “LPTA should not be used when the SSA will be required to make a judgment as to the - esirability of one offeror’s proposal versus a competing proposal.”
Adds a New Technical Risk Rating - The 2011 Procedures had three technical risk ratings – low, moderate, and high. The 2016 Procedures provide a fourth technical risk rating, which is “unacceptable.” It is defined as “likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance” and the risk is unlikely to be overcome “even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.”
Recommends Debriefings in Person - The 2016 Procedures now include a stated preference for face-to-face debriefings: “[w]henever practicable, debriefings should be conducted in person.” The Debriefing Guide at Appendix A of the 2016 Procedures is generally similar to the 2011 Procedures although it now directs that “Legal Counsel shall attend the debriefing when the offeror’s Legal Counsel will attend the debriefing.” (Emphasis supplied.) Contractors should note the “sample offeror questions” at A.9 of Appendix A, which includes a useful checklist of key questions for offerors to consider in preparing for a debriefing.
Source Selection Team Roles and Responsibilities - Another interesting aspect of the new Procedures is the expanded roles and responsibilities section, including a new section on the role of Legal Counsel. That section recognizes that “Legal Counsel is an integral part of the source selection process and is crucial in reviewing documentation for legal sufficiency as well as providing legal advice throughout the source selection process.”
Conclusion - DoD’s new Procedures are a step in the right direction to incorporate initiatives developed as part of BBP 3.0 and to respond to industry requests for clarity on the specific value, if any, that the Government places on exceeding minimum requirements and for further guidance on the appropriate use of LPTAs. However, because the VATEP is a new concept, we will have to wait and see how DoD implements this tradeoff process to determine whether it actually provides this clarity or if DoD can “monetize” subjective standards.