The purpose of the Evaluation phase in the acquisition process is to evaluate all offers/quotes received against the evaluation factors set forth in the Solicitation. Once received, all must be evaluated to ensure that award is made to a contractor/vendor who is responsive to the Solicitation, meets any selection criteria that were established within the Solicitation, is able to perform (per FAR 9), and offers the needed supplies and/or services at a fair and reasonable price.

For procurements greater than fhe micro-purchase threshold but less than the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT), the Contracting Officer shall document fair and reasonable price determination for the contract file in a Simplified Acquisition Documentation Record.

For procurements using Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP) for Commercial Items under FAR 13.5, the Contracting Officer must complete a more robust document, a streamlined Business Case Memorandum (BCM). See the SAP Pre/Post-Negotiation BCM Template and SAP Post-Negotiation BCM Template.

A more formal evaluation procedure may be needed for larger dollar acquisitions such as formal source selection procedures which may include identifying strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies, and providing a sound basis for an award decision. Although ultimate responsibility for conducting a proper evaluation lies with the Contracting Officer, the Customer/Project Officer plays a significant role in evaluations, source selections, and debriefings. In addition, the level of documentation, review and approval may become more thorough such as the need to develop a Pre- and Post-Negotiation Business Case Memorandum.

In all cases, once offers/quotes are received, safeguards must be taken to protect proprietary information, both technical and cost related, from unauthorized disclosure. This applies to both competitive and sole-source procurements. Contracting Office guidelines and instructions concerning source selection information should be strictly followed.

3.1 Simplified Acquisition Procedures Evaluation Process

Top of Page

Once quotes are received, all must be evaluated to ensure that award is made to a vendor who is responsive to the Solicitation, meets any selection criteria that were established within the Solicitation, is able to perform (per FAR 9), and offers the needed supplies and/or services at a fair and reasonable price.

All quotes received must be considered impartially by the Contracting Officer, taking into consideration transportation charges as appropriate. Quotations or offers must be evaluated on the basis established in the Solicitation and the evaluation results documented in the contract file. The Contracting Officer has broad discretion in fashioning suitable evaluation procedures in the Solicitation but must ensure adherence to the procedures during the Evaluation.

Several methods of evaluation are included in this section. In addition to price evaluation techniques, the Contracting Officer should consider other factors that affect the total price to be paid, such as minimum order charges, packing/packaging charges, and special marking charges. Each of these factors has the ability to increase the total acquisition price. The Contracting Officer may evaluate quotations based on price alone or price and other factors (e.g., past performance, delivery, quality). Suppliers must be advised when quotations are solicited and award will be made on factors other than price alone. Those factors must be identified in the Solicitation.

Quotations shall be evaluated by their aggregate firm fixed prices (including Options) unless the Contracting Officer determines that it is not in the Government’s best interest (e.g., when there is a reasonable certainty that funds will be unavailable to permit exercise of the Option).

3.1.1 Fair and Reasonable Price Determination Top of Page

All actions over the micro-purchase threshold must have a written “fair and reasonable” determination, which is documented in the contract file (FAR 13.106-3). A fair and reasonable price is one that is fair to both parties involved in the acquisition – Government and Contractor – considering the promised quality and timeliness of the Contractor’s performance. Typically, there is not one singular price that is fair and reasonable, but there exists a range of acceptable prices, considering the character of the marketplace in which the supply or service is normally sold and the degree of competition available. Market research, current market price/conditions, previous purchases, catalogs, advertisements, similar items in a related industry, value analysis, the Contracting Officer’s personal knowledge of the items being purchased, comparison to an Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE), or any other reasonable basis should all be considered when making a determination of price reasonableness.

For procurements greater than the micro-purchase threshold but less than the Simplified Acquisition Threshold, the Contracting Officer shall document fair and reasonable price determination for the contract file in a Simplified Acquisition Documentation Record. The Contracting Officer should provide adequate documentation to support his/her determination. For procurements using Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP) under FAR 13.5, the Contracting Officer must complete a more robust document, a streamlined Business Case Memorandum (BCM). See the SAP Pre/Post-Negotiation BCM Template and SAP Post-Negotiation BCM Template.

If only one quote is received in response to a Solicitation, price reasonableness still needs to be determined, and the Contracting Officer must evaluate all quotations to determine if competition has resulted in a fair and reasonable price. Wide variations in prices may be an indication that a vendor does not understand the requirement or is trying to “buy-in” to the procurement. The Contracting Officer must explain wide discrepancies in quoted prices in determining the prices fair and reasonable.

3.1.2 Price Analysis Top of Page

Price analysis is the process of examining and evaluating a quoted price without considering either the cost of the elements therein or the profit of the Vendor. When awarding procurements using SAP, the conclusion that a price is fair and reasonable is generally based on price analysis. In many cases, price analysis uses comparisons to establish a basis for determining price reasonableness. The following are the primary price analysis techniques used in simplified acquisitions. These methods usually require no further analysis by the Contracting Officer. When competition is not available (e.g., for a sole-source requirement), other forms of price analysis must be utilized. When three Vendors are solicited for quotes and only one quote is received, the Contracting Officer must use a price analysis technique other than competition to make a determination that the proposed price is fair and reasonable before making the award.

3.1.2.1 Primary Price Analysis Techniques Top of Page

Primary price analysis techniques are pricing methods that can stand alone and normally require no further information or analysis by the Contracting Officer.

Price Competition. Comparing competitive quotes is the best method for determining a proposed price to be fair and reasonable. When utilizing this price analysis technique, the prices must bear a reasonable relationship to one another. Adequate price competition exists when quotes have been solicited from at least three sources, with a minimum of two independent quotations received that can be used to establish a competitive range (a fairly tight cluster of quotes). The proximity of the range of prices provides the Contracting Officer with an indication that adequate price competition has been obtained and award can be made without additional comparisons. If the quoted prices vary significantly, it could mean that a Quoter is efficient and is passing on quantity discounts, or that he/she is trying to “buy-in” with an unrealistically low price or has provided a mistaken quotation. If the price variance between responses reflects a lack of adequate competition, some other form of price analysis must be used to determine that the price is fair and reasonable. Additionally, the Contracting Officer must make analysis of a quoted item’s real worth (based on past experience and personal judgment).

Established Catalog/Market Price List. When only one quote is received or price competition is otherwise determined inadequate, the buyer must use other price analysis techniques. Another such technique is use of an established catalog/market price list. When a valid comparison can be made through this method, it may assist the Contracting Officer in his/her fair and reasonable determination. It is important to note that established market or catalog prices alone do not establish price reasonableness, however. Additional price analysis must be performed to verify the validity of the catalog or market price. In order to use a catalog, it must be regularly maintained by the Vendor and published or otherwise made available for inspection by Customers. It must state prices at which sales are currently or were last made to a significant number of persons or businesses constituting the general public. Market price is established (independently of the manufacturer or Vendor) during the normal course of business between buyers and sellers, and can be verified via newspapers, radio, or TV ads. All items must be commercial, regularly used for other than Government purposes, and sold in substantial quantities to the general public.

Note: Supplies are sold in substantial quantities when facts or circumstances support a reasonable conclusion that the quantities regularly sold constitute a real commercial market for the item. Nominal quantities like models, specimens, samples, and prototype or experimental units do not meet this requirement. Services are sold in substantial quantities and are customarily provided by a company with regularly-employed personnel and regularly-maintained equipment, if any is needed solely or principally to provide such services.

When relying on published prices, there must be a high degree of confidence that the price list reflects prevailing competitive rates and that the suppliers' awareness of one another's prices was as effective as direct competition in establishing those prices. Some manufacturers may use a series of catalogs with varying prices for different classes of Customers, charging what they think the market will bear. Contracting Officers should ask many questions and document the answers in the contract file. When using this method, the file should be documented with the Vendor’s catalog date (at a minimum) or a copy of the page from the catalog that contains the published price.

Prices Set by Law or Regulation. If the price quoted is set by law or regulation, the Offeror is required to identify the regulated price. The Contracting Officer must ensure that the Quoter is the entity being regulated. Some suppliers sell mostly to regulated industries; the Federal Government may not be subject to the same laws and regulations. If Government sales are not controlled by such legally established prices, the Contracting Officer should use the established catalog/market price technique. The first step in this comparison technique is to obtain a copy of the rate schedule set by the applicable law or regulation. The Contracting Officer must verify that the Government is being charged the correct price and that the Vendor falls under the regulation.

3.1.2.2 Secondary Price Analysis Techniques Top of Page

The following are secondary price analysis techniques, which should be used to support primary techniques that are inadequate.

Comparison between Previous Similar Buys and Current Prices (Historical Comparison). A price previously paid or quoted cannot be used to determine price reasonableness unless the Contracting Officer knows that the prior purchase was fair and reasonable, as determined by the comparison of competitive quotations. To use this pricing technique, the following criteria must be met:

· The prior purchase price used was determined in writing to be fair and reasonable, taking into consideration the competitive environment that shaped the previous price (e.g., purchase quantity, delivery time, transportation charges, and special packaging).

· The Contracting Officer should select the most recent previous history purchases to ensure the greatest reliability of the price comparison.

· The Contracting Officer should select previous buys that had identical or similar quantities. When variations exist between quantities being compared, the Contracting Officer should explain how prices are comparable.

Comparison with IGCE. A quoted price may be compared with a reliable, supported, and documented Government estimate when primary analysis techniques have proven inadequate. The Contracting Officer must evaluate the supporting documentation provided by the Customer to determine how the IGCE was derived. The documentation should include a validation of the amount of labor effort required, the type of materials, and any travel or other direct costs.

The Procurement Request estimate can be a valid standard for comparison if the estimate’s origin can be determined and the originator used a reasonable past purchase price. The Customer can also perform a technical analysis of the item being purchased as a basis to establish price reasonableness. Supporting documentation that explains the basis of analysis should be included.

One should not assume that, because a quoted price is the same or less than the IGCE, the quoted price is reasonable. In some cases, the Customer obtains an informal quote from the supplier before submitting the Purchase Request to the Contracting Officer. A careful buyer investigates the basis of the estimate.

3.1.2.3 Auxiliary Price Analysis Techniques Top of Page

When both primary and secondary techniques are insufficient to determine fair and reasonable pricing, the following methods may be used to support the determination in conjunction with one of the other methods previously listed:

· Value analysis.

· Price breakdowns.

· Parametric analysis.

Value analysis. The value analysis technique attempts to develop the intrinsic worth of a product or service. This analysis may help a Contracting Officer justify the price of a sole-source offer or explain differences between past buys and present quotes. To use value analysis, the Contracting Officer will need to obtain additional information from the Customer and/or the Contractor (e.g., intended use, any special manufacturing processes or treatments that would support a higher price, cost of the end item that is inoperable because of a missing part). With the assistance of the Customer and Contractor, he/she must carefully review the Government’s requirement and answer the following questions where applicable: (a) What does the product have to do? (b) What does it cost now? What prices did we pay previously? What does it cost to operate and maintain? (c) Is it part of a larger system or product? What is the cost of the system or product? (d)What is the effect on mission accomplishment without the availability?

Price breakdowns. Questions that the Contracting Officer should ask to obtain price breakdown information include: (a) What does the Contractor pay for the item? (b) What are the components or elements of the Contractor’s pricing? (c) What are the Contractor’s basic labor rates?

Parametric Analysis. Cost Estimating Relationships (CERs) are sometimes used to develop parametric estimates or rough yardstick estimates with which to support a determination that the price is fair and reasonable. A CER is a formula for estimating prices based on the relationship of past prices with one or more product physical/performance characteristic (e.g., dollars per pound or dollars per horsepower). Whenever an item’s price can be related to a value of one or more physical or performance characteristics, the relationship can be used to estimate the price of the same or similar product. When using CERs, the Contracting Officer/Buyer must ask themselves three questions: (a) Has the CER been widely accepted in the marketplace (i.e., by both buyers and sellers)? (b) Does the CER produce reasonable results? (The user has the burden of proving that the rough yardstick produces reasonable estimates.) (c) How accurate is the CER? (The buyer should validate using known product data and prices.)

For a more in-depth discussion of price analysis techniques, see FAR 15.404-1, and the DAU Price Analysis Techniques Training Material.

3.1.3 Evaluation Techniques Top of Page

Contracting Officers should make purchases in the simplified manner that is most suitable, efficient, and economical based on the circumstances of each acquisition. For acquisitions not expected to exceed --

(1) The Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) for other than commercial items, use any appropriate combination of the procedures in FAR 13, FAR 14, and FAR 15.

(2) $6.5 million ($12 million for acquisitions as described in FAR 13.500(e)), for commercial items, use any appropriate combination of the procedures in FAR 12, FAR 13, FAR 14, and FAR 15.

3.1.3.1 Streamlined Evaluation Procedures per FAR 13.106 Top of Page

The following are not required and should generally not be used for procurements less than or equal to the SAT: formal evaluation plans, establishing a competitive range, conducting discussions, and scoring quotations or offers. For some commercial procurements under the SAT, the Contracting Officer may compete on price alone. Contracting Officers may conduct comparative evaluations of offers.

Evaluation of other factors, such as past performance—

· Does not require the creation or existence of a formal data base; and

· May be based on information such as the Contracting Officer’s knowledge of and previous experience with the supply or service being acquired, Customer surveys, or other reasonable basis.

Upon receipt of quotations or offers, the Contracting Officer may:

· After preliminary consideration of all quotations or offers, identify one that is suitable to the Customer, such as the lowest priced brand-name product, and quickly screen all lower priced quotations or offers based on readily discernible value indicators, such as past performance, warranty conditions, and maintenance availability; or

· Where an evaluation is based only on price and past performance, make an award based on whether the lowest priced of the quotations or offers having the highest past performance rating possible represents the best value when compared to any lower priced quotation or offer.

If the Contracting Officer determines that the award decision should be based on evaluation factors tailored to the acquisition, then the evaluation factors must represent the key areas of importance and emphasis to be considered in the award decision and support meaningful comparison and discrimination between and among competing offers. Adjectival ratings should be assigned and defined for each evaluation factor/subfactor. Solicitations are not required to state the relative importance assigned to each evaluation factor and subfactor, nor are they required to include subfactors.

Minimum Order Charges. Occasionally an item can be obtained only from a supplier that quotes a minimum price or quantity that exceeds the price or quantity stated on the Purchase Request. In these circumstances, the buyer should inform the requesting activity of the minimum price or quantity charges and obtain their approval to alter the quantity and obtain additional funds if required. The total evaluated price must include any minimum order or quantity charges.

Packing/Packaging Charges. Quotes should be solicited based on commercial packing and packaging practices unless the requesting activity has indicated on the Purchase Request that special handling is required. If the Quoter includes separate charges for special packing and packaging requirements, the buyer must include those charges in the total evaluated price.

Special Marking Charges. Some Purchase Requests include instructions for special marking requirements (e.g., special marking other than commercial bar coding). If the Quoter includes separate charges for the required marking, the Contracting Officer must include those charges in the total evaluated price.

3.1.3.2 Source Selection Procedures under FAR 13.5 Top of Page

For more complex requirements, the Contracting Officer may choose to obtain commercial items under FAR 13.5 with the source selection procedures allowed by FAR 15 in lieu of or in addition to the streamlined evaluation procedures in FAR 13.106. In such situations, source selection procedures facilitate selecting the offer representing the best value to the Government.

The Contracting Officer should keep in mind that while using FAR 15 evaluation methods allows the greater discretion in award selection, additional regulatory and administrative requirements may need to be satisfied (e.g., establishing a competitive range might subsequently require pre-award debriefings).

Per FAR 2.101, best value is the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. The perceived benefit of a higher-priced offer should merit the additional cost or price; rationale for this tradeoff must be documented in the contract file. The FAR allows the Contracting Officer to evaluate factors, in addition to price, to determine best value to the Government. When the Contracting Officer makes the determination to use FAR 15 source selection procedures, and technical factors are considered in selecting best value, the award decision takes one of two approaches:

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (FAR 15.101-2) – This approach is appropriate when best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable offer with the lowest evaluated price. The evaluation factors must be set forth in the Solicitation, and award is made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. Tradeoffs (among cost and non-cost factors) are not permitted. Proposals or quotations are evaluated for technical acceptability but not ranked using non-cost/price factors.

Tradeoffs (FAR 15.101-1) – This approach is appropriate when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced Vendor or other than the highest technically rated Vendor. It permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal or quotation. The perceived benefits of the higher proposal or quotation must merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented in the file in accordance with FAR 15.406.

Contracting Officers may make awards using SAP based on factors other than the lowest proposed price. All evaluation factors and significant subfactors that will affect contract award and their relative importance shall be clearly stated in the Solicitation; and the Solicitation shall state whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are:

· Significantly more important than,

· Approximately equal to,

· Or significantly less important than cost or price.

Examples of factors other than price include, but are not limited to: delivery requirements, Vendor past performance, quality of the product or service to be procured, timeliness, technical capability, and business practices. These factors must be identified in the Solicitation with adequate documentation in the contract file to support the inclusion of the factors. The factors should reflect the Government’s specific requirements that are other than price related. The emphasis should be on obtaining the best overall value for the Government, price and all other factors considered. A description of each of the above factors is provided below:

Delivery. The requesting activity may provide instructions via the Purchase Request that delivery is a critical factor in choosing the prospective Contractor. If a requirement is determined to be urgent, the Contracting Officer must identify delivery in the Solicitation as a qualifying evaluation factor. Some valid examples of urgency would be situations involving work stoppages or a safety/hazardous condition that would impair NOAA’s mission. In evaluating quotations for award, the Contracting Officer must evaluate the Contractor’s quoted delivery time along with the price to determine who will receive the eventual award. The Contractor offering the best guaranteed delivery would be awarded the order. The contract file must include documentation supporting the decision to pay an additional amount for expedited or guaranteed delivery.

Past Performance. The Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) is the web-enabled, Government wide application used by the Federal acquisition community when conducting evaluations and making source selection decisions. PPIRS may be used as a source of past performance information.

Quality. The Contracting Officer may include quality as an evaluation factor in the Solicitation. This may entail referencing the purchase description or Performance Work Statement (PWS), identifying critical quality elements that the requested supply or service must meet (e.g., shelf life of the product, maintenance-free operation, education and experience of personnel providing the service). Additionally, this may include an evaluation of past experience with the Contractor to identify the company’s compliance with contract requirements in the past and whether past products or services conformed to the standards of good workmanship.

Timeliness. When using timeliness as a factor in award, the Contracting Officer evaluates the Contractor’s history of on-time delivery. He/she should determine whether the Contractor has consistently adhered to established delivery schedules in the past.

Technical Capability. This factor examines the capability of the Contractor’s offered product (supply or service) to meet the Government’s requirement. When using technical capability as an evaluation factor, the Contracting Officer will need the Customer’s input to determine if the offered supply or service meets the Requiring Activity’s needs. This review may include an examination of product literature, product samples (if requested), technical features, warranty provisions or an evaluation of the type and kind of personnel offered to perform the service.

Business Practices. If the Contracting Officer uses business practices as an evaluation factor, consideration should be given to past experiences with the Contractor (using inputs from Customers and Contracting Officer’s Technical Representatives (COTRs) who have previously worked with and have knowledge of the Contractor’s business practices). Site surveys and pre-award surveys may be the best source of information on specific business practices affecting the promised supply or service.

Source Selection Steps – When using the evaluation procedures under FAR 15, formal source selection will occur. The source selection process meets the following objectives:

· Select the offer that represents the best value to the Government.

· Ensure impartial, equitable, and comprehensive evaluation of each offer.

· Document the basis for the selection decision that reflects sound business judgment.

The source selection process is complex and detailed. Contracting Office guidelines and instructions concerning source selection information should be strictly followed.

3.1.3.3 Evaluation Procedures for the Acquisition of Commercial Items Top of Page

Literature. When technical information is necessary to evaluate quotes, the Contracting Officer should review existing product literature to determine its adequacy for immediate evaluation. If determined adequate, existing product literature may be utilized to evaluate quotations. In any case, Contracting Officers should only request the minimum technical information necessary to perform an adequate evaluation for award.

Quotes. Contracting Officers may authorize Quoters to propose more than one product that will meet the Government’s need. The Contracting Officer must evaluate each product as a separate quotation.

Past Performance. Past performance can be an important element of each evaluation and subsequent award for a commercial item. Contracting Officers should consider past performance data from a wide variety of sources both inside and outside the Government per the policies found in FAR 13.106-2.

3.1.4 Contractor Responsibility Determination Top of Page

FAR 9.103 directs agencies to purchase from Contractors who are responsible. Purchases shall be made from, and contracts shall be awarded to responsible prospective Contractors only. To be determined responsible, a prospective Contractor must satisfy the following:

· Have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them.

· Be able to comply with the required or proposed delivery or performance schedule.

· Have a satisfactory performance record (check with the Small Business Administration (SBA) to verify information provided by the Contractor).

· Have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.

· Have the necessary organization, experience, accounting and operational controls, and technical skills, or the ability to obtain them.

· Have the necessary production, construction and technical equipment and facilities, or the ability to obtain them.

· Be able to comply with labor laws applicable to the order.

· Have not been listed as suspended or debarred (http://epls.arnet.gov); and

· Be otherwise qualified and eligible for award based on applicable laws and regulations as well as standards set forth by the Government.

The determination of Contractor responsibility is not required in an award to National Industries for the Blind and Severely Disabled (NIB/NISH), foreign state or local governments, or for overseas acquisitions (if the practice is inconsistent with the laws or customs where the Contractor is located).

Unless the Contracting Officer has reason to believe a prospective Contractor may not meet the above criteria, for simplified acquisition actions, the Contracting Officer shall, as a minimum, review the current list of all parties debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, or declared ineligible by agencies or by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Vendors on this list are precluded from doing business with the Government. “The List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and Non-Procurement Programs” is available via http://www.epls.gov.

If appropriate to the circumstances, the Contracting Officer may use other methods of responsibility determination. Consult FAR 9.1 for guidance. The contract file should adequately reflect the Contracting Officer’s decision regarding responsibility of a Contractor.

Note: If a Small Business Concern’s offer that would otherwise be accepted is to be rejected because of a determination of nonresponsibility, the Contracting Officer shall refer the matter to the SBA, which will decide whether or not to issue a Certificate of Competency (see FAR 19.6).

3.1.4.1 Use of Past Performance Information in Making Responsibility Determinations

Top of Page

Before awarding a contract in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT), FAR 9.104 requires Contracting Officers to review the Federal Awardee Performance Integrity Information system (FAPIIS), containing specific information on the integrity and performance of covered Federal agency contractors and grantees. FAPIIS is intended to significantly enhance the scope of information available to Contracting Officers as they evaluate the integrity and performance of prospective contractors competing for Federal contracts and to protect taxpayers from doing business with contractors that are not responsible sources. Contractors will be required to confirm, at the time of offer submission, information pertaining to criminal, civil and administrative proceedings through which a requisite determination of fault was made, report this information into FAPIIS, and update the information in FAPIIS on a semi-annual basis, throughout the lifetime of the contract, by entering the required information into FAPIIS via the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database @ http://www.ccr.gov. Government input to FAPIIS is accomplished at www.cpars.csd.disa.mil. Contracting Officers shall check the FAPIIS website (available at www.ppirs.gov; then select FAPIIS) before awarding a contract over the SAT, consider all the information (see FAR 42.15) in FAPIIS and PPIRS, as well as other past performance information, when making a responsibility determination, and notify the agency official responsible for initiating debarment or suspension action if the information appears appropriate for the official’s consideration. Contracting Officers shall use sound judgment in determining the weight and relevance of the information contained in FAPIIS and how it relates to the present acquisition. The Contracting Officer shall document the contract file to indicate how FAPIIS was considered in any responsibility determination as well as action taken as a result of the info. A Contracting Officer who makes a non-responsibility determination is required to document that information in FAPIIS. If the Contracting Officer determines that a small business lacks certain elements of responsibility, the Contracting Officer shall comply with FAR 19.6. When a Certificate of Competency is issued for a small business concern, the Contracting Officer shall accept the SBA’s decision and award the contract to the concern. See FAR 9.1 for further information and guidance regarding contractor responsibility.

3.1.5 Evaluation Documentation Top of Page

Contracting Officers are relied upon to be good stewards of taxpayers’ dollars; they have a fiduciary responsibility on behalf of the Federal Government to make smart contracting decisions in the best interest of the Government. FAR 1.602-1(b) explains:

“No contract shall be entered into unless the Contracting Officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met.”

The required evaluation documentation demonstrates fulfillment of statutory and regulatory responsibilities and sets forth business decisions for approval. Further, this documentation provides an audit trail for post award review, if necessary, and serves as key evidence to support contracting decisions in the case of disputes or higher-level reviews, such as those by the GAO or the DOC Inspector General (IG). The evaluation documentation may also serve as a guide for future negotiations and, for this reason, should be all-inclusive, stand-alone documents, containing all supporting data required to reflect the entire history of the procurement.

For SAP procurements, the Contracting Officer has two instruments to satisfy the evaluation documentation requirements: A streamlined BCM for commercial acquisitions under FAR 13.5 and a Simplified Acquisition Documentation Record for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold and the Simplified Acquistion Threshold (SAT).

The following matrix lists the SAP evaluation documentation required for different contract actions under FAR 13.

	Contract Actions	Clearance Documentation Required
Non-commercial	Micro-purchase threshold to the SAT	Simplified Acquisition Documentation Record Using SAP Under FAR Subpart 13.106
Non-commercial	Greater than The SAT up to $6.5M	Streamlined BCM Using SAP Under FAR Subpart 13.5
Commercial	Micro-purchase threshold to the SAT	Simplified Acquisition Documentation Record Using SAP Under FAR Subpart 13.106
Commercial	Greater than the SAT up to $6.5M (Greater than $1M up to $12M for Contingency Operations)	Streamlined BCM Using SAP Under FAR Subpart 13.5 SAP Pre/Post-Negotiation BCM SAP Post-Negotiation BCM

3.1.5.1 Below the SAT: Simplified Acquisition Documentation Record Top of Page

When procuring items below the SAT under FAR 13.106 (micro-purchase threshold to $100,000), the Contracting Officer must document the determination of fair and reasonable pricing for the contract file, but does not have to complete a formal BCM. The Simplified Acquisition Documentation Record guides the Contracting Officer through the process of detailing business decisions throughout the procurement process and should be maintained in the contract file.

3.1.5.2 Above the SAT: Streamlined Business Case Memorandum (BCM) Top of Page

A BCM should be prepared for all actions exceeding $100,000. When procuring commercial items above the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) and under $6.5 million using SAP under FAR 13.5, the Contracting Officer may use a streamlined BCM.

The SAP Pre/Post-Negotiation BCM Template contains all of the requirements of both the Pre- and Post-Negotiation documentation and is used when the Contracting Officer makes an award on initial offer(s) or requests authority to establish a competitive range and enter into discussions.

The SAP Post-Negotiation BCM is used to document information presented during the negotiation process and provide rationale for the negotiated position achieved by the Contracting Officer. It also serves to document any changes between the Pre-negotiation Objective and the Post-Negotiation Position.

3.2 Formal Source Selection Process

Top of Page

3.2.1 Process Steps Top of Page

The source selection process commences to meet the following objectives:

· Select the offer that represents the best value to the Government.

· Ensure impartial, equitable, and comprehensive evaluation of each offer.

· Document the basis for the selection decision that reflects sound business judgment.

Source Selection Steps

*Planning / Scheduling*
1.	Contracting Officer and Project Officer review and update Acquisition Plan to ensure the schedule for the evaluation and award process are accurate and have blocked sufficient time for both technical and cost/price evaluation.
2.	Contracting Officer receives offers.
*Source Selection Kickoff*
3.	The Contracting Officer (with support from Counsel) leads the source selection kickoff meeting to train and brief team members prior to evaluations on the rules and regulations supporting a legal and sound source selection process. (See Source Selection Kickoff Memo Template.)
4.	The Source Selection Organization reviews the Solicitation and Source Selection Plan (SSP) with an emphasis on Sections L and M. (See APG Solicitation Module)
5.	Source Selection Organization members complete a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) (see Source Selection NDA Template) and depending on local procedures, an OGE Form 450.
*Evaluation / Analysis*
6.	Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) (typically three members from the Project Officer, one designated as the Chair) receives copies of offers excluding cost/price information. Technical evaluations commence, at the Contracting Office or alternate location as determined by the Contracting Officer, SSEB prepares the Technical Evaluation Report and provides it to the Contracting Officer.
7.	Simultaneously Past Performance Evaluation Team (PPET) (typically consisting of the Contracting Officer and Specialist) receives copies of offers. Past Performance evaluations commence, including Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) assessment retrieval. PPET prepares the PPET Report and provides it to the Contracting Officer.
8.	Simultaneously Cost/Price Analysis Team (C/PAT) (typically consisting of the Contracting Officer and Specialist) receives copies of offers. Cost/price analysis commences. The Contracting Officer may request field pricing assistance.
9.	The Contracting Officer reviews the SSEB Report and the PPET Report in conjunction with the C/PAT analysis results. This integrated assessment reveals whether discussions are necessary and/or further evaluation is required.
*Discussion / Business Case Memorandum*
10.	If discussions are determined necessary, the Contracting Officer establishes a competitive range, documenting the analysis in an approved Pre-negotiation Business Case Memorandum (BCM). Discussions are held with those Offerors within the competitive range and final revised offers are requested, evaluated, and documented in a Post-Negotiation BCM.
11.	If discussions are not necessary, and an award will be made on initial offers, the Contracting Officer documents the analyses and award recommendation in a Pre/Post-Negotiation BCM.
*Selection / Award*
12.	The Source Selection Authority (SSA) selects the most advantageous offer.
13.	The Contracting Officer provides the required notifications and announcements and makes an award See APG Award Module for more information.
*Post-award*
14.	The Contracting Officer debriefs unsuccessful Offerors with the assistance of the Project Officer and Counsel See APG Award Module section 4.6
15.	The Contracting and Project Officers hold a Post-award Conference with the successful Offeror (see APG Post-Award Module).

3.2.2 Source Selection Participants Top of Page

Participants in source selections may include personnel from the Project Office, the requiring NOAA line office or other NOAA line offices, DOC offices and bureaus, Department of Defense agencies, other civilian agencies, and non-Government sources. Non-Government sources can include academia, nonprofit institutions, and industry willing to be subjected to the organizational conflicts of interest (OCI) provisions of FAR 9.5. See Contractors as Evaluators section below for details.

The structure of a given source selection will vary depending upon procurement type and complexity. For example:

· NOAA requires the participation of the following:

· Contracting Officer or Chief of the Contracting Office (CCO) as the Source Selection Authority (Source Selection Advisory Councils (SSACs) are typically not used).

· Project Officer as the Chair of the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) (performing the technical evaluation).

· Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist leading the Cost/Price Analysis Team (C/PAT) (performing the cost/price analysis).

· Contract Specialist leading the Past Performance Evaluation Team (PPET) (performing the past performance evaluations).

· Source selections for complex acquisitions will generally follow a more formal process and include additional participants such as a Source Selection Advisory Committee (SSAC).

Following is a brief description of each participant’s role/responsibilities. For more detailed information regarding specific responsibilities, see the Source Selection Plan Template.

Source Selection Authority (SSA). For acquisitions below $10 million, the Contracting Officer or the HCO shall serve as the SSA. For acquisitions of $10 million or more, the SSA shall be the DUS for Oceans and Atmosphere (see NOAA Acquisition Handbook 15.2) subject to delegation to an Assistant Administrator or Department manager at a level above the Contracting Officer. The SSA is responsible for ensuring that all aspects of the selection process are conducted properly. Based on input from an evaluation team tailored for a particular acquisition, the SSA personally determines the successful Offeror and documents the decision in the source selection decision. The SSA’s decision is based upon a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the Solicitation. While the SSA may use reports and analysis prepared by source selection participants, the selection decisions shall represent the SSA’s independent judgment.

Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC). When used, the SSAC consists of a Chair (often the Contracting Officer) and other personnel (often the Project Officer team) appointed by the SSA to act as advisors throughout the source selection process. The source selection duties of SSAC members must take precedence over their normal duties. For further details regarding the SSAC’s specific responsibilities, see CAM 15-2.

Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). The SSEB consists of a Chair (often the Project Officer) and other qualified Government personnel appointed by the Chair of the SSAC to evaluate the non-cost/price portions of offers consistent with the SSP and Sections L/M of the Solicitation. The source selection duties of SSEB members must take precedence over their normal duties. It is desirable that both the personnel on the SSEB and those who advise the SSEB have previous experience in similar or related programs in order to provide mature judgment and expertise in the evaluation process. In particular, the members of the SSEB should be the same individuals who drafted the Statement of Work, Performance Specification, and Sections L/M of the Solicitation. In general, the more complex the procurement, the more detailed the evaluation will be; the more detailed the evaluation, the greater the number of SSEB members.

Cost/Price Analysis Team (C/PAT). The C/PAT consists of a Chair and other qualified Government personnel appointed by the Chair of the C/PAT to analyze the cost/price portions of offers consistent with the SSP and Sections L/M of the Solicitation. The source selection duties of C/PAT members must take precedence over their normal duties.

It is the Contracting Officer’s responsibility to select the members as well as the Chair of the C/PAT. It is highly desirable that both the personnel on the C/PAT and those who advise the C/PAT have previous experience in similar or related programs in order to provide mature judgment and expertise in the evaluation process. In particular, the members of the C/PAT should be the same individuals who drafted Sections L/M of the Solicitation.

For cost-reimbursable procurements, it is advisable to have at least one member of the C/PAT possess technical expertise in the subject matter of the acquisition (e.g., Project Office employee) so that that employee may assist the remaining members (e.g., Contracting Officer, Contract Specialist, Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) auditors) in conducting a proper cost realism analysis of offers. In general, the more complex the procurement, the more detailed the evaluation will be; the more detailed the evaluation, the greater the number of C/PAT members.

Past Performance Evaluation Team (PPET). The PPET consists of designated personnel to perform the past performance evaluations. The Contracting Officer designates the PPET (which is typically led by the Contract Specialist).

Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer is responsible for preparing Solicitations and contracts, conducting any clarification/communication/ discussion sessions with Offerors, and fulfilling all other duties required by the SSP (e.g., SSA, SSAC Chair, C/PAT Chair, PPET).

Counsel. Counsel is responsible for reviewing the Solicitation and SSP for legal sufficiency; providing advice to the SSA, SSAC, and C/PAT during source selection; attending oral presentations; reviewing all documents that compose the source selection record for form and content prior to award; reviewing the proposed contract(s) for form and content prior to award; and participating in the “dry run” and actual debriefings, and defending the resulting award(s) against any bid protests.

Contractors as Evaluators. Although it is permissible to use Contractor personnel to support Evaluations, their use should be minimized. Approval for use of Contractor personnel as evaluators requires an approved written determination in accordance with FAR 37.204 (see D&F Template to Use Contractors as Evaluators). All support Contractors used in the Evaluation process is required to complete Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) prior to participation.

Contractor personnel may be used only where a specific area of expertise is required to conduct the evaluation but is unavailable within the Government to support the source selection. They may be used only in an advisory capacity and not as a voting member (i.e., they cannot rank or recommend one proposal over another, assign any ratings or numerical scores, or otherwise act in a decision making capacity). They will have access only to those portions of the proposals and source selection information that they require to perform their assigned duties.

Section L of the Solicitation must notify potential Offerors of the Government’s intent to use support Contractors in the Evaluation process and request written release from each Offeror authorizing support Contractors to view their proposal. In addition, such proposal evaluation services must be provided under a contract whose Statement of Work (SOW) – and, if an indefinite delivery contract (IDC), Task Order – provides specific and detailed descriptions of the advisory proposal evaluation services to be provided. Contractor personnel may be paid to provide proposal evaluation services only in an advisory capacity using funds appropriate for advisory and assistance services, i.e., OMB Object Class Code 25.1 (“Advisory and Assistance Services”).

The Contracting Officer and Counsel should ensure that no OCIs exist between the Contractor whose personnel are proposed to provide proposal evaluation services and any potential Offerors or their prospective subcontractors. In that regard, the support Contractor’s contract must contain an approved OCI clause sufficient to ensure that the support Contractor will not be a subcontractor at any tier for the acquisition in question. (For more information on OCIs, see APG Planning Module.)

3.2.3 Source Selection Kickoff Top of Page

The Contracting Officer will provide the team with a copy of the Solicitation and Source Selection Plan (SSP) in sufficient time so that they may familiarize themselves with the documents prior to receipt of offers. After receipt of offers, the Contracting Officer convenes an Evaluation kickoff meeting with all of the evaluators to accomplish the following:

· Provide guidance to members of the Evaluation team regarding how to evaluate offers received.

· Sensitize members to the absolute necessity to not release source selection sensitive material to unauthorized persons.

· Obtain a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) and, if required by local procedures Office of Government Ethics (OGE) Form 450 (Confidential Financial Disclosure Report) from each evaluator for review, disposition, and retention by Counsel.

For more information on the Evaluation kickoff meeting, see the Source Selection Kickoff Memo Template.

3.2.3.1 Rules of Conduct Top of Page

To prevent violations of the Procurement Integrity Act, Trade Secrets Act, and/or Economic Espionage Act, the following rules of conduct (which are contained in the SSP) apply to all source selections:

· Do not discuss offers, findings, recommendations, etc., outside working places or within hearing range of individuals not participating in the source selection.

· Do not assume it is safe to discuss the source selection because you are among Government employees or in Government buildings.

· Do not accept an invitation from an Offeror or any of its personnel to participate in any event/function, regardless of how remote it may be from the source selection process, without consulting and obtaining approval of Counsel. Standards of conduct/conflict of interest questions should be referred to Counsel as soon as they arise.

· Do not discuss any part of the source selection with anyone who is not a member of the source selection team, even after announcement of a winning Contractor. This rule applies regardless of the rank or position of the inquirer, except with written permission of the SSAC Chairperson and the Contracting Officer.

· Do not discuss the procurement with any person not part of the source selection team. Do not confirm your participation in the Evaluation, the number or identities of evaluators, the number or identities of Offerors, or any other information related to the procurement, no matter how innocuous or trivial it may seem. Any contacts from persons not involved in the source selection process should be reported immediately to the SSAC Chairperson and the Contracting Officer.

· Do not engage in prohibited conduct (e.g., knowingly furnishing source selection information, revealing an Offeror’s price without that Offeror’s permission, revealing an Offeror’s technical solution, and revealing the source(s) of past performance information). (See FAR15.306 (e).)

3.2.3.2 Safeguarding Source Selection Information Top of Page

FAR 2.101 defines “source selection information” as any of the following information that is prepared for use by an agency for the purpose of evaluating a bid or proposal to enter into an agency procurement contract, if that information has not been previously made available to the public or disclosed publicly:

· Bid prices submitted in response to an agency invitation for bids, or lists of those bid prices before bid opening.

· Proposed costs or prices submitted in response to an agency solicitation, or lists of those proposed costs or prices.

· Source selection plans.

· Technical evaluation plans.

· Technical evaluations of proposals.

· Cost or price evaluations of proposals.

· Competitive range determinations that identify proposals that have a reasonable chance of being selected for award of a contract.

· Rankings of bids, proposals, or competitors.

· Reports and evaluations of source selection panels, boards, or advisory councils.

· Other information marked as “Source Selection Information—See FAR 2.101 and 3.104” based on a case-by-case determination by the head of the agency or the contracting officer, that its disclosure would jeopardize the integrity or successful completion of the Federal agency procurement to which the information relates.

To properly safeguard source selection information and protect it from unauthorized disclosure, follow these procedures (see FAR 3.104-4):

· The workspaces used for the evaluation should be secured in terms of privacy and controlled access.

· All evaluation reports should be labeled “Source Selection Information– See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

· Prior to award, all working papers/rough drafts that are not required for retention in the official contract file should be shredded or placed in a burn bag for immediate destruction.

· All documentation within the work area must be secured at all times that it is not under the direct control of authorized persons.

· The use of e-mail to send/receive any source selection sensitive information is discouraged to preclude accidental release.

Note: If at any time during the source selection an evaluator becomes aware that there has been an unauthorized release of source selection sensitive information, that evaluator should IMMEDIATELY inform the relevant Chair of his/her evaluation board, the Contracting Officer, and assigned Counsel.

3.2.3.3 Best Value/Tradeoff vs. Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Top of Page

Each offer is evaluated based upon the evaluation methodology chosen and approved during the Planning phase. The evaluation methodology is approved via the SSP (see APG Planning Section 1.11 and evaluation factors are stated in the Solicitation, along with their relative importance (see FAR 15.1).

Simplified Acquisitions are not required to state the relative importance assigned to each evaluation factor, and the Contracting Officer has broad discretion in fashioning suitable evaluation procedures. For Simplified Acquisition evaluations see FAR 13.106

Best Value/Tradeoff. Under the tradeoff process, both cost (or price) and non-cost factors are evaluated, and the contract is awarded to the Offeror proposing the combination of factors that represents the overall best value based on the evaluation criteria and rating scale as defined in the SSP. The success of a best value evaluation is dependent on the consistency with which the evaluators apply the rating scales.

Inherent in this process is the necessity to make tradeoffs considering the non-cost strengths and weaknesses, risks, and the cost (or price) proposed in each offer. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will ultimately select the successful Offeror by considering these tradeoffs and applying his/her business judgment to determine the offer that represents the best value.

When using the tradeoff process, identification of proposal strengths, weaknesses, risks, and deficiencies is crucial because:

The Contracting Officer will consider these items when determining the competitive range,
They provide the framework for any resultant discussions and debriefings, and
Specific information on the relative strengths and weaknesses is the basis for tradeoff analysis and the source selection decision.

Proposals are evaluated using the rating structure specified in the SSP. Rating schemes should not employ numeric rating and ranking; an adjectival rating structure is preferred (e.g., Outstanding, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, Unsatisfactory). (For sample adjectival ratings, see the Army Source Selection Guide, February 2007.)

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable. An alternative best value evaluation method is “lowest price technically acceptable.” This method is appropriate when best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable offer with the lowest evaluated cost/price. When using this method, offers are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-cost/price factors. Evaluation factors and significant subfactors that establish the requirements of acceptability are set forth in the Solicitation, and the Solicitation must specify that award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. For more information on this method, visit FAR 15.101-2.

In every source selection, cost (or price) must be analyzed and the quality of the proposed product or service evaluated. The quality of the product or service may be addressed through one or more non-cost evaluation factors; e.g., personnel qualifications, technical excellence, management capability.

Past performance must be evaluated on all NOAA negotiated competitive acquisitions.

Do's and Don’ts of Best Value Selection

Do:

Do keep all "players" informed.
Do convey in the Solicitation exactly what the Contractors will be evaluated on (say what you’re going to do) and then follow through (do what you said you would do).
Do evaluate based on the factors, relative weights, rating scales, and instructions as detailed in the SSP.
Do ensure supporting data is reliable and can withstand any challenge or scrutiny.
Do thoroughly document the decision.

Don't:

Don’t use Best Value methods to eliminate a non-responsible Contractor; handle non-responsible Offerors using traditional FAR 9.1 methods.
Don’t deviate from your stated evaluation methodologies when evaluating offers.
Don’t use numeric scoring schemes unless prior approval from the Director AGO has been obtained.

3.2.4 Technical Evaluation Top of Page

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) is sequestered, briefed by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) and Counsel, and commences the technical evaluation:

· The SSEB reviews the Source Selection Plan (SSP), Solicitation, and offers.

· Each evaluator independently completes an evaluation form (assigned ratings and associated rationale narrative) for each offer. The evaluation form lists the evaluation factors and rating areas for each factor and subfactor. While conducting initial evaluations, SSEB members should not discuss and compare evaluations in order to provide an independent assessment.

· Evaluators start at the lowest level of the criteria hierarchy and aggregate evaluation results upward (e.g., the subfactor and factor level, respectively).

· Evaluators compare each offer against the Solicitation/evaluation factors in the SSP and complete an evaluation form for each offer. Evaluators should not compare offers against one another when completing their individual evaluation forms.

· The SSEB discusses individual evaluations to ensure a common evaluation baseline. The SSEB arrives at a consensus regarding the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies contained in each offer with respect to the factors/subfactors.

· The SSEB collectively assigns adjectival ratings for each Evaluation factor/subfactor and documents their findings and consensus in a written report to the SSA. The report details the overall assessment of each offer and provides a source selection recommendation or discussion questions. (See APG 3.2.5).

Oral Presentations, All or part of a technical offer may be presented and evaluated orally when the Contracting Officer determines that information from Offerors to evaluators can be conveyed in a more meaningful and efficient way through verbal means.

If oral presentations occur prior to establishment of a competitive range or when the Government contemplates awarding on initial offers, then the type of questions that the Government may pose to an Offeror during oral presentations is limited to “clarifications.” If discussions are conducted orally or entered into during an oral presentation, the Government must still comply with requirements under FAR 15.306 regarding exchanges with Offerors and FAR 15.307 regarding proposal revisions.

Oral presentations can be a powerful tool in helping the Government determine which Offeror has proposed the greatest overall benefit in response to a requirement. But if used incorrectly, conducting oral presentations can result in either a delayed award or an award to the wrong Offeror. For more information, see APG Planning Module Section 1.11.1

3.2.5 Past Performance Evaluation Top of Page

The Past Performance Evaluation Team (PPET) (typically the Contract Specialist) will perform the performance history evaluation for each offeror in accordance with the solicitation requirements. Past performance information is an indicator of an Offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully. Note: This comparative assessment of past performance information is separate from the responsibility determination required under FAR 9.1.

The Government must evaluate past performance in all competitively negotiated acquisitions. For acquisitions less than the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT), past performance should be used as an evaluation factor when it makes good business sense and is anticipated to be a meaningful discriminator among potential Offerors.

PPIRS. The Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) is a repository for contractor performance assessment reports to be used by contracting officials in making source selection decisions. PPIRS receives assessment reports from various Federal systems such as Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and the National Institutes of Health Contractor Performance System. The PPET can retrieve past performance information from http://www.ppirs.gov/ after obtaining user access to the site. When evaluating past performance, the automated PPIRS should be used as a source of past performance information.

Evaluators should consider the following:

Currency and relevance of the past performance information. (The Source Selection Authority (SSA) makes the final determination regarding relevancy.)
Source of the past performance information.
Context of the data.
General trends in Contractor’s performance.
Information obtained from any other sources.

The Contracting Officer has broad discretion regarding the type of data to be considered in the past performance evaluation, such as the following:

Past performance of predecessor companies.
Relevant experience of key personnel.
Subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement.
Compliance with small business subcontracting plan goals, as appropriate.
Unrestricted acquisitions greater than $650,000 shall evaluate participation of small disadvantaged business concerns.
For Solicitations greater than $1 million involving bundling and that offer a significant opportunity for subcontracting, the PPET must evaluate past performance indicating the extent to which the Offeror attained applicable goals for small business participation under contracts that required subcontracting plans.

Following are general steps in the evaluation of past performance:

Step One: Review past performance information submitted by offerors in response to the Solicitation requirements.

Step Two: Gather further information for evaluation. Qualitative information on the offeror’s past performance is gathered via databases (PPIRS), questionnaires (see Past Performance Questionnaire Template), and/or interviews. Contracting Officers, Contracting Officer Representatives (CORs), and program management office representatives often are excellent sources of information.

Step Three: Determine relevancy of past performance information. In order for an offeror’s record of past performance to be an indicator of its future performance, the past performance information must be relevant to the pending contract. Relevancy is a threshold question, not a separate element or subfactor of past performance.

Step Four: Ensure the past performance information is "recent" as specified in the Solicitation (e.g., three years or five years).

Step Five: Assess quality of past performance of individual efforts. Assess the quality of the offeror’s past performance on relevant efforts.

Step Six: Assign a rating to the past performance factor. Arrive at a rating for the past performance factor using the rating scale in the Source Selection Plan (SSP). In determining the rating, take into consideration the number and severity of problems, the demonstrated effectiveness of corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), the overall work record, and the degree of relevancy of all of the considered efforts. Ratings should reflect overall results rather than problem-free management. The final assessment should include rationale for the conclusions reached, including instances of good or poor performance related to the Solicitation requirement. As long as the rationale is reasonable, i.e. based on analysis, verification, or corroboration of the past performance information and is evaluated against the evaluation factors stated in the Solicitation, it will withstand any challenges.

After concluding all of the offerors’ past performance evaluations, the PPET prepares a PPET Report, assigning adjectival ratings to each offer, and detailing the assessment in a narrative. The PPET submits the report to the SSA. (See PPET Report Template.)

Handling Adverse Past Performance. When adverse past performance information is obtained, contact the respective point of contact to get further information about the circumstances surrounding the situation. When practical, contact at least one other individual (e.g., Project Officer, Contracting Officer, or Contracting Officer's Representative (COR)) to get a second perspective on the Contractor’s performance on the subject work effort. Consider the context of the performance problems, any mitigating circumstances, the number and severity of the problems, the demonstrated effectiveness of corrective actions taken, and the overall work record.

If there is past performance information that adversely impacts an offeror’s proposal, the Contracting Officer must provide the offeror an opportunity to address any such information on which it has not had a previous opportunity to comment. Whether this opportunity occurs during clarifications, communications or discussions depends upon whether discussions are anticipated and, if they are, if they have been opened.

When addressing adverse past performance information, identify the contract, but in no case identify the name of the individual who provided the information. Summarize the problems with sufficient detail to give the offeror a reasonable opportunity to respond.

The following figure E-1, from the Army Source Selection Guide, February 2007, illustrates when adverse past performance should be addressed:

APG Image - Decision Model

Note: Contractors may not be given downgraded past performance evaluations for availing themselves of their rights by filing protests and claims or for deciding not to use Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Conversely, Contractors may not be given more positive past performance evaluations for refraining from filing protests and claims or for agreeing to use ADR.

No Record of Past Performance. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The PPET should assign this offeror a neutral rating under the past performance factor.

GAO Decisions on Past Performance. Evaluation of past performance information is a matter within the discretion of the contracting agency. GAO's review of any protest concentrates on whether the agency evaluated the relative merits of the offers and assessed ratings in a reasonable manner, consistent with the Solicitation’s evaluation terms and rating definitions. Bottom line: Contracting Officers and evaluation teams must adhere to the terms of evaluation as presented in the Solicitation.

The following GAO rulings regarding past-performance related protests help emphasize this point:

B-296176.2, Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc., Dec. 9, 2005. Protest that past performance evaluation was unreasonable was sustained where record shows that the agency made no attempt during evaluation to assess the relevance of the Offerors’ prior contracts, notwithstanding Solicitation term requiring such an assessment. Protest sustained.

B-297654, Greater Pacific Aquatics, February 2, 2006. Under Solicitation for lifeguard services, procuring agency reasonably rated protester neutral under past performance evaluation factor where protester’s proposal showed that protester had managed swim team, but had not performed lifeguard services. Protest denied.

B-297791.2, Ideamatrics, Inc., May 26, 2006. Protest challenging evaluation of proposals and source selection decision is denied where record demonstrates that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the Solicitation, and protester’s arguments amount to mere disagreement with agency’s conclusions. Protest denied.

For further guidance, see CAM 1342.15.

3.2.6 Source Selection Reports Top of Page

Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Report. The SSEB reviews all offers in accordance with the Source Selection Plan (SSP) and arrives at a consensus regarding the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies contained in each offer and collectively assigns adjectival ratings for each evaluation factor and subfactor. Once a consensus is reached, the SSEB chair consults with Contracting Officer and prepares the SSEB report to articulate the consensus. The report shall contain the following:

· An outline bearing a logical relationship to 1) the factor/subfactor being evaluated, 2) the definitions of “strength,” “weakness,” “significant weakness,” and “deficiency” contained in Section M of the Solicitation (or the SSP), and 3) the adjectival rating definitions contained in Section M of the Solicitation (or the SSP). For instance, it would be illogical for SSEB members to conclude that a portion of an offer associated with a specific subfactor contains a couple of “deficiencies” but nevertheless conclude that that portion of the offer should receive an “Outstanding” rating.

· Explanations – for example, of why a particular weakness in an offer may increase risk of unsuccessful contract performance, or why a particular strength in an offer may decrease risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

· A list of proposed discussion questions or source selection recommendation.

Cost/Price Analysis Team (C/PAT) Analysis. C/PAT members analyze offers consistent with the evaluation criteria listed in Section M of the Solicitation and SSP. The methodology used to analyze cost/price varies by procurement. For a discussion of various types of cost/price analysis techniques (e.g., price analysis, cost analysis, cost realism analysis) and the manner in which they should be used to evaluate offers.

The C/PAT findings are documented in a Business Case Memorandum (BCM), which includes the following:

· Adequate detail regarding the cost/price analysis method utilized.

· Results of the cost/price analysis for each offer.

· Any information utilized from the SSEB report that affects price.

· A list of proposed discussion questions or source selection recommendation.

Past Performance Evaluation Team (PPET) Report. After concluding all of the Offerors’ past performance evaluations, the PPET prepares a PPET Report, assigning adjectival ratings to each offer, and detailing the assessment in a narrative. The PPET submits the report to the SSA.

Source Selection Decision – BCM. The SSA (the DUS, delegated AA or Program Director, HCO, or CO) reviews the SSEB report, PPET Report, and C/PAT Analysis, and documents in the BCM a determination to either award without discussions or establish a competitive range. The BCM summarizes the results contained in the SSEB, PPET, and C/PAT evaluations and explains the extent to which the SSA agrees or disagrees with the contents of those reports. As required by FAR 15.308, the Source Selection Decision (as documented in the BCM) must be based upon a comparative assessment of offers against all evaluation criteria in the Solicitation, include the rationale for any business judgments and tradeoffs made or relied on by the SSA (including benefits associated with additional costs), and make it clear that the decision reflects the SSA’s independent judgment.

3.3 Performance Based Evaluations

Top of Page

Responding to a performance-based Solicitation, especially one containing a SOO that seeks Contractor-developed solutions is substantial work for Offerors. Likewise, evaluation of what may be significantly different approaches can be difficult, time-consuming work for the Government. The team will have to understand the Contractor-proposed solutions, assess the associated risks and likelihood of success, identify the discriminators, and perform the best-value tradeoff analysis.

Offerors will provide with their offer a QCP that describes their procedures for meeting the requirements and standards that the Government monitors per the QASP.

3.3.1 Key Evaluation Areas for PBA Procurements Top of Page

Is the Offeror’s staffing plan and management plan appropriate to meet the performance and quality requirements of the Government?
Is the Offeror’s QCP commensurate with the complexity and criticality of the requirements in the PWS?
Does the Offeror’s QCP have a method of identifying deficiencies in the quality of services performed before the level of performance is unacceptable?
Does the Offeror’s QCP have an inspection system covering all the services specified in the PWS?
Does the Offeror’s QCP detail the mix of scheduled and unscheduled inspections and the individuals who will do the inspection?
Does the Offeror’s QCP and the Government's QASP complement each other properly?
Is it necessary to do a Pre-award Survey to see the Offeror’s QCP at work?
What has been the Offeror’s past performance on contracts with similar requirements?
Has the Offeror’s proposal, WBS, and/or QCP demonstrated a complete understanding of the requirements as spelled out in the technical evaluation criteria?
What risks are associated with the Offeror’s proposal?

3.3.2 Best Value Top of Page

FAR 15.3 describes Best Value, an evaluation method that allows for tradeoffs in evaluation factors that will consider award to other than the lowest priced Offeror. Because Offeror approaches may vary significantly, the PBA Team must be mindful that offers must be carefully evaluated against the original objectives of the procurement as identified in the requirements analysis.

3.3.3 Past Performance Top of Page

Past Performance is a key indicator for predicting future performance. The most common methods of gathering past performance information are a) the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and b) asking Offerors for references to complete past performance evaluation forms. When evaluating past performance for actions greater than $1M, the automated PPIRS should be used as a source of past performance information.

It is important to note that past performance information must be relevant, current, and accurate to the acquisition. When interviewing references or developing the evaluation forms, questions should be tailored to the specific nature of the PBA. For example, a key question might be was the Contractor's QCP effective and was it followed? The documentation collected during surveillance of Contractor performance is very effective in supporting past performance evaluations. For more information on Past Performance see APG Evaluation Module Section 3.2.5.

3.3.4 Discussions Top of Page

Communication with Offerors is an important element of selecting the right Contractor. Despite this fact, it is common today in negotiated procurements to announce the intent to award without discussions. Given the complexities associated with performance-based proposals (i.e., different approaches and different performance metrics), it can be difficult to award confidently without conducting discussions. While awarding without discussions may allow for a quicker award, discussions are a valuable tool available to help the PBA Team fully understand the quality of the solution, pricing approach, and incentive structure.

3.4 Cost/Price Analysis

Top of Page

Cost/price analysis will occur in both competitive and sole-source procurements. The Cost/Price Analysis Team (C/PAT) is convened, briefed by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) and Counsel, and commences the cost/price analysis.

· The C/PAT (typically the Contract Specialist) reviews the Source Selection Plan (SSP), Solicitation, and offers.

· The C/PAT creates and utilizes independent Excel spreadsheets to conduct cost/price analyses of each offer, the results of which will serve as the foundation for building pre-negotiation objectives.

· C/PAT spreadsheets are instrumental in revealing mathematical errors or omissions in Offerors’ cost/price proposals that may need to be clarified or addressed during discussions.

· The C/PAT requests field pricing assistance deemed essential. The C/PAT must coordinate with the audit agency to ensure adequate time is allowed to process the audit and furnish a copy of each offer and any other relevant information to the audit agency.

· The C/PAT may request input from the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) after completion of technical evaluations to ensure the cost/price is reflective of the proposed technical approach.

· The C/PAT prepares the results of their analyses in a BCM to establish negotiation objectives and/or recommendations.

For more information on field pricing assistance, see below. More detailed information on cost/price analysis is provided in the BCM Module. (See also the Contract Pricing Reference Guide: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/cpf/contract_pricing_reference_guides.html.)

3.4.1 Field Pricing Assistance Top of Page

Field pricing assistance may be requested to support cost/price analysis. The type and amount of price related information available, whether it is obtained from the buying activity, audit agencies, or through market research, would determine the extent of field pricing support required. The general rule of thumb is that the greater the risk (e.g., cost contracts, high dollar buys), the greater the need for field pricing assistance.

The C/PAT should consider requesting field pricing assistance in the following higher risk situations:

· Fixed-price proposals exceeding the cost or pricing data threshold.

· Cost-type proposals exceeding the cost or pricing data threshold from Offerors with significant estimating system deficiencies.

· Cost-type proposals exceeding $10 million from Offerors without significant estimating system deficiencies.

· The C/PAT should not request field pricing support for proposed contracts or modifications in an amount less than the cost or pricing data threshold unless a reasonable pricing result cannot be established because of a lack of knowledge of the particular Offeror or sensitive conditions (e.g., a change in or unusual problems with an Offeror’s internal systems).

· Inadequate competition and insufficient information preclude the C/PAT from making a fair and reasonable price determination.

For cost/pricing data threshold, see FAR 15.403-4(a)(1).

3.4.1.1 Defense Contract Audit Agency and Defense Contract Management Agency Top of Page

The C/PAT may request cost/pricing or technical reviews during the Evaluation process:

Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) performs cost/price audit services.
Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) performs contract administration services and pre-award surveys; provides technical (i.e., engineering evaluation of proposed labor hours or material requirements), production and other special reports associated with the cost elements of a proposal (i.e., evaluations of specific cost elements, rates, and factors or estimating methodologies); and negotiates and furnishes Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) information.

Contracting Officers are encouraged to contact DCMA and DCAA early in the evaluation process to coordinate field pricing assistance for the procurement. Adequate time should be allocated in the acquisition plan (milestones) for DCMA /DCAA to provide field pricing support. Generally 30 days is customary.

DCMA Assistance. The Contracting Officer should identify analysis needs and tailor assistance requests accordingly (see FAR 15.404-2). If current and reliable technical or audit information is already available to some extent, full audit assistance may not be necessary. Consider the following scenarios:

· If there is already information available from an existing audit (completed within the last 12 months), never request a separate pre-award audit of indirect costs unless the Contracting Officer considers the information already available inadequate for determining the reasonableness of proposed indirect costs.

· If there was an indirect cost audit within the last 12 months but no forward pricing rate agreement, contact the cognizant auditor/Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) to obtain information on the current Government rate recommendations.

· If there is a reliable record of the Offeror’s current FPRA for direct labor rates, there is no reason to request a direct labor rate analysis from the cognizant auditor or ACO.

· If the Offeror’s proposal states that the firm has proposed indirect cost forward pricing rates in accordance with an established FPRA, verify that statement with the responsible ACO. If the ACO verifies that the proposed rates are part of a forward pricing rate agreement, no further indirect cost rate analysis is required.

· If there is a reliable record of recent production costs for an identical item, do not request an audit of production cost history.

· If the Government and the Contractor have established pricing formulas, determine whether changes in production methods or market conditions will affect those formulas. If not, further technical or audit analysis should not be necessary. If conditions have changed, request analyses to consider the effect of those changes.

· If the Offeror uses standard component prices, determine whether changes in production methods or market conditions will affect those prices. If not, further audit analysis of material prices for those components should not be necessary. If conditions have changed, request an audit to consider the effect of those changes.

DCAA Assistance. The C/PAT should look at the magnitude and complexity of the analysis needed for the procurement and the specialized resources available “in-house” before requesting such assistance. If there is still a question as to the type of audit service required, contact the on-site DCAA Financial Advisor for assistance. Such requests should be tailored to reflect the minimum essential supplementary information needed to conduct a technical or cost/price analysis.

Following are the audit services provided by DCAA and a brief discussion as to when the C/PAT should request a particular service:

Rate Information. DCAA provides rate information or other specific cost data. For labor intensive competitive requirements, rate verification may suffice. Rate information can be requested for the prime Contractor and any subcontractors if the information is available. DCAA usually has rate information available for most large companies that do business with the Government on a regular basis. When rate information is requested, DCAA will provide a confirming memorandum vice a full report.

Agreed Upon Procedures. The C/PAT may request assistance from DCAA to review a specific part of a cost/price proposal. DCAA performs the agreed-upon procedures based on the needs of the requestor. The procedures must be mutually agreed-to in advance and should be specific, subject to measurable criteria, and not call for an audit opinion. An example of an agreed-upon procedure related to proposed labor costs would be to compare the proposed direct labor rates with the Offeror’s latest FPRA and report any differences. DCAA may also verify proposed labor categories and current direct/indirect rates, and/or substantiate sales for commercial items.

Partial Audit of the Proposal. A partial audit is requested on selected cost data when prior contract data, comparative information, FPRAs, or other analytical techniques are insufficient to complete the evaluation of costs. The report will issue an opinion only on the cost element audited.

Audit of Entire Proposal. Field pricing is generally directed at cost reimbursement proposals that are not labor intensive, and complex firm-fixed-price (FFP) production type proposals, including subcontracts. An audit of the entire proposal entails a review of all cost elements and may be required when information available at the buying activity is inadequate to determine a fair and reasonable price or the rate structure of a company is affected due to a reorganization, acquisition, or merger. The report will issue an opinion on the acceptability for negotiations of the proposal as a whole.

3.4.1.2 Procedures for Requesting Field Pricing Support Top of Page

Contacting DCAA or DCMA. Telephone, e-mail or fax the DCAA or DCMA office to request rate verification. Request a copy of their required rate request letter format, if one is used. The agency might also accept a facsimile copy of that portion of the Contractor’s proposal that lists the labor rates. DCAA/DCMA will verify the rates and respond within three days with a written confirmation.

· DCAA Field Audit Offices: http://www.dcaa.mil

· DCMA Field Audit Offices: http://www.dcma.mil

The C/PAT is encouraged to request DCAA rate checks and/or audit reports electronically.

Information to Give DCAA. Information such as, but not limited to, the proposed rates, RFP/proposal number, contract type, expected contract value, and performance period may be requested. Ensure that DCAA receives the labor category cross-reference matrix identifying the Government labor categories (inclusive of the wage determination labor categories, if applicable) and the Offeror’s proposed labor categories. Request that DCAA concurrently forward the audit report to the requesting Contracting Officer and the ACO if an audit and technical analysis are both requested. (See FAR 15.404-2(b)(1)(ii).)

Information to Give DCMA. At a minimum, a request for technical analysis should include a copy of all technical information proposed by the Offeror. Other required information will depend on the specific assistance requested. Ensure that DCMA receives a description of the extent of assistance needed. Identify the specific areas for which input is required.

Note: Upon requesting pricing assistance, it is strongly recommended that the Contracting Officer enter into dialogue with the ACO, designated functional specialist, or auditor assigned to the request. Ensure that there is a mutual understanding of what is needed, the required timeframe for the analysis, and the desired format.

Formal Audit Report Requests

Prime Contracts. Identify any special concerns and discuss with the On-Site DCAA Financial Advisor prior to issuing the request for audit. Ensure these concerns are addressed in the formal written audit.

Subcontracts. The C/PAT may request an assist audit when information to support subcontractor cost/price proposal analysis at the buying activity is inadequate to determine a fair and reasonable price. Subcontractor audit requests should be submitted directly to the DCAA subcontract auditor. However, if the review of a prime Contractor’s proposal requires a further review of subcontractors’ cost estimates at the subcontractor’s plants (after due consideration of reviews performed by the prime), the Contracting Officer should inform the cognizant ACO before the review is initiated.

Note: Assure that all personnel involved understand that the subcontractor's consent must be obtained before the Government can provide the results of a Government analysis of a subcontract proposal to the prime Contractor or higher-tier subcontractor. If the subcontractor withholds consent, only provide information on a range of unacceptable costs for each cost element, and provide that range in a way that prevents disclosure of subcontractor proprietary information. Counsel’s involvement is highly recommended.

Preparing the Requests. Send a written request (e-mail is preferred) for pricing assistance to the cognizant ACO and/or DCAA auditor(s) as appropriate. For urgent requests, call the DCAA and/or DCMA office that will perform the audit or technical analysis, and if possible e-mail or telefax the request to that office. The Contracting Officer may contact the cognizant audit office directly, in lieu of necessarily first contacting the cognizant DCMA. It is good business practice, however, to keep the ACO informed of upcoming audit requests performed by DCAA given their contract administration and FPRA negotiation function.

The C/PAT should ensure requests for field pricing assistance specifically identify the services and date by which the services are needed. Each request for field pricing assistance should include the (sub)contractor’s offer or name of the person providing it. Sample letters and checklists, which may be used when preparing requests for field pricing assistance, are below:

3.4.1.3 Price Challenges Top of Page

When the Customer or Contracting Officer suspects that the Government is being overcharged for a product, he/she may submit a complaint to the Department of Commerce Inspector General at http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/index.html.

3.5 Award Without Discussions

Top of Page

After evaluating all offers, the Government may be ready to make an award. Award may be made without discussions if the Solicitation explicitly states that the Government intends to evaluate offers and make award without discussions. This requirement is satisfied by the inclusion of FAR 52.215-1 (“Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition”) into Section L of the Solicitation.

FAR 15.306(a)(1) describes clarifications as limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. If award will be made without discussions, Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their offers, such as:

Relevance of past performance.
Adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond.
Minor/clerical errors.

Clarifications do not permit Offerors to revise or modify their offers.

3.6. Award with Discussions

Top of Page

The Government may choose to enter into negotiations with Offerors with the intent of permitting those Offerors an opportunity to revise or modify their offers (see FAR 15.306(d)). When negotiations are conducted in a competitive acquisition, they take place after establishment of the competitive range and are called discussions.

3.6.1 Establish Competitive Range Top of Page

The Government may determine a need to conduct discussions with Offerors. Before conducting discussions, the Government must establish a competitive range and document the decision rationale in a Pre-negotiation Business Case Memorandum (BCM). In general, a competitive range should be established only after the Government has evaluated each offer in accordance with all evaluation factors in the Solicitation, including cost/price. That is not to say, however, that the Government must under all circumstances consider the Offeror’s proposed cost/price before it eliminates that offer from the competitive range.

The Government may eliminate an offer from the competitive range without evaluating that offer’s proposed cost/price if the Government determines that the offer is excessively or grossly deficient (e.g., the Offeror’s technical proposal contained one or more deficiencies or failed to meet a material Solicitation requirement). Proposals should also be screened to determine whether they are in compliance with all stated mandatory requirements. If a proposal does not meet the material requirements of the Solicitation, it may be eliminated. Under such circumstances, the Offeror’s proposed cost/price becomes irrelevant.

The Contracting Officer and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) must take care in establishing the competitive range. The Government’s failure to properly establish a competitive range may have the following consequences:

Offerors improperly eliminated from the competitive range could file protests.
Offerors that should have been included in the competitive range were not and, in retrospect, could have revised or modified their offers to such an extent that their offers would have been the best value to the Government.
Offerors who are unlikely to be selected for award had to continue expending bid and proposal costs on a competition they had no reasonable chance of winning, instead of shifting their bid and proposal costs to competitions in which they have a better chance for success.

FAR 15.306(c) states that the competitive range shall consist of all of the most highly rated offers, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency. To determine whether an offer is one of the most highly rated and should be included in the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, consider the following:

Whether a “clean break” exists between offers to be included in the competitive range and those that will not be included. For example, some offers are substantially stronger in various areas associated with non-cost/price evaluation criteria than others.
Even if a large number of offers are received, they all may still be the most highly rated and therefore should be included in the competitive range.
Expected dollar value of the award(s).
Complexity of the acquisition and solutions proposed.
Other relevant matters consistent with the need to obtain the best value.

Note that it is permissible to establish a competitive range of one as long as that Offeror is the only technically acceptable Offeror or has submitted an offer that is substantially superior to all other offers submitted to the Government.

Irrespective of how many offers are included in the competitive range, the SSA and Contracting Officer must determine which are the most highly rated offers, and the Contracting Officer must document that determination and its supporting rationale in a BCM.

After establishing the competitive range, the Contracting Officer must provide written notification to each Offeror who does not fall within the competitive range. This notification shall state the following:

That their offer has been eliminated from consideration for award.
The basis for the determination.
That a revised offer will not be considered.

The Offeror is entitled to a pre-award debriefing if requested in writing within 3 days after receipt of the notice of exclusion (see FAR 15.505). At the Offeror's request, this debriefing may be delayed until after award. If delayed, the debriefing shall include all information normally provided in a post-award debriefing (see FAR 15.506(d)). If the Offeror does not submit a timely request, the Offeror need not be given either a pre-award or a post-award debriefing. Offerors are entitled to no more than one debriefing for each offer.

If it is necessary to further reduce the competitive range after discussions have begun, the Contracting Officer must document the revised competitive range determination and notify Offeror(s) of their elimination from consideration for award.

3.6.2 Conduct Pre-award Debriefings Top of Page

Offerors excluded from the competitive range (or otherwise excluded from the competition before award) may request a pre-award debriefing. At a minimum, pre-award debriefings include the following:

· Evaluation of significant elements in the Offeror’s proposal.

· Summary of the rationale for eliminating the Offeror from the competition.

· Reasonable responses to relevant questions about whether source selection procedures contained in the Solicitation, applicable regulations, and other applicable authorities were followed in the process of eliminating the Offeror from the competition.

Meaningful debriefings serve to strengthen and enhance the Government’s relationship with industry, instilling greater confidence in the acquisition process through comprehensive and open exchanges in which the Offeror is given an opportunity to provide feedback regarding the Solicitation and the source selection process.

The Offeror must submit a written request for a pre-award debriefing to the Contracting Officer within 3 days after receipt of the notice of exclusion from the competition. At the Offeror’s request, the debriefing may be delayed until after award, in which case it will include all information normally provided in a post-award debriefing (see APG Award Module Section 4.6). Note that delaying debriefings may affect the timeliness of any protest filed subsequent to the debriefing.

Offerors excluded from the competitive range that do not submit a timely request for debriefing need not be given either a pre- or post-award debriefing. Additionally, Offerors are entitled to no more than one debriefing for each procurement.

Conducting the Debriefing. The Contracting Officer shall make every effort to debrief the unsuccessful Offeror as soon as practicable, but may refuse the request for a debriefing if, for compelling reasons, it is not in the best interests of the Government at that time. The rationale for delaying the debriefing shall be documented in the contract file. If the Contracting Officer delays the debriefing, it shall be provided no later than the time post-award debriefings are provided. Again, the debriefing will then include all information provided in a post-award debriefing (see FAR 15.506(d)).

Debriefings may be conducted orally, in writing, or by any other method acceptable to the Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer chairs the debriefing session and members of the SSEB and C/PAT and Counsel shall provide support as warranted.

Pre-award debriefings shall not disclose the following:

· Number of Offerors.

· Identity of other Offerors.

· Content of other Offerors’ proposals.

· Ranking of other Offerors.

· Evaluation of other Offerors.

· Any information prohibited from disclosure by FAR 24.202 or exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) including:

Trade secrets;
Privileged or confidential manufacturing processes and techniques;
Commercial and financial information that is privileged or confidential, including cost breakdowns, profit, indirect cost rates, and similar information; and
The names of individuals providing reference information about an Offeror’s past performance.

For more information, see FAR 15.506. See also the Proposed Debriefing Agenda Template – a tool that Contracting Officers can tailor for use in both pre- and post-award debriefings.

Documenting the Debriefing

Official summaries of each debriefing shall be included in the contract file in accordance with FAR 15.506(g). Prepared by the Contracting Officer and signed by appropriate members of the source selection team (e.g., SSEB, C/PAT, and/or PPET Chairs, and Counsel), each official summary includes the following:

List of attendees.
Summary of information disclosed during the debriefing.
Presentation materials as an attachment.
Questions and answers discussed during the debriefing.
Any relevant information provided subsequent to the debriefing.

3.6.3 Conduct Discussions Top of Page

Discussions are negotiations that occur after establishment of the competitive range, permitting Offerors to revise or modify their offers. Discussions allow the Government to gather more detailed information in order to further evaluate offers. The Government may employ discussions to clarify or identify a change in a requirement, or to allow Offerors an opportunity to correct perceived weaknesses in their offers.

Discussions must be conducted by the Contracting Officer with each Offeror within the competitive range; however, discussions are considered “conducted” by the act of opening discussions whether or not the Government has questions for each Offeror. Offerors in the competitive range shall be notified of their status in writing and provided discussion questions accordingly. (See Sample Letter to Contractors Opening Discussions.) If the Government does have questions, those questions are tailored to each offer. If the Government does not have questions, each Offeror in the competitive range is still allowed an opportunity to revise its offer.

During discussions, the Government relays issues to Offerors, publicizes changes in the Solicitation resulting from discussions, and identifies a common due date for receipt of final proposal revisions / final offers.

Discussion Dos and Don’ts

The primary objective of discussions is to maximize the Government’s ability to obtain best value, based on the requirement and the evaluation factors set forth in the Solicitation. (See FAR 15.306(d)(2)). The following may be discussed:

Deficiencies.
Significant weaknesses.
Adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond.
Whether the Offeror’s price is considered to be too high/low and the basis for that opinion.
Other aspects of the offer that could be altered or explained to enhance materially the offer’s potential for award.
In cases where the Solicitation states that evaluation credit would be given for technical solutions exceeding mandatory minimums, the Government may negotiate with Offerors for increased performance beyond stated minimums.
The Government may also suggest to Offerors that have exceeded any mandatory minimums that their offers would be more competitive if the excesses were removed and the offered price decreased.

Government personnel should not do the following:

Engage in conduct during discussions that favors one Offeror over another.
Reveal an Offeror’s technical solution to another Offeror.
Reveal an Offeror’s intellectual property to another Offeror.
Reveal an Offeror’s price without that Offeror’s permission.
Reveal the names of individuals providing past performance information.
Furnish any other source selection information.

Discussions with Offerors may be conducted orally or in writing. For complicated supply and services acquisitions it is advisable to conduct discussions (i.e., pose questions to the Offeror and receive responses) in writing.

Discussions are required to be meaningful. Questions posed should be as specific as practicable and cover the topics described in this section, as appropriate. The Contracting Officer should identify areas of an offer that require amplification or correction that must be addressed for that Offeror to have a reasonable chance of being selected for award. This may be done by posing the Government’s question, citing the page/section/paragraph number of the offer, and quoting the specific language that triggered the Government’s concern.

The Contracting Officer must avoid misleading Offerors. This might occur through questions or silence, leading an Offeror into responding in a manner that fails to address actual concerns, misinforms the Offeror concerning a problem with its offer, or misinforms the Offeror about the Government’s requirements.

Discussions must also be equitable and not favor one Offeror over another. The level of specificity of questions posed to one Offeror must be similar to the level of specificity of questions posed to other Offerors within the competitive range.

Discussions are not required to:

· Be all encompassing.

· Be overly specific in describing the Government’s concerns.

· Discuss every aspect of an offer that received less than the maximum score.

· Advise an Offeror of a weakness that is not considered “significant” (even if the weakness subsequently becomes a determinative factor in choosing between two closely ranked offers).

The Contracting Officer should ensure that discussions do not describe how the Offeror should revise its offer to cure weaknesses or deficiencies. To do so would defeat an objective of the Evaluation process – that is, to assess an Offeror’s understanding of the Solicitation requirements and their approach of the best method to meet those requirements.

Where the Government has advised an Offeror of an area of concern, the Government is not required to raise the issue again in a subsequent round of discussions – even where the issue continues to be of concern to the Government – until that defect has been corrected. Likewise, the Government is not required to reopen discussions to give an Offeror additional opportunities to revise its offer when the Offeror’s final revision contains a deficiency that was not contained in its prior submissions.

3.6.4 Request Final Revised Offers / Proposal Revisions Top of Page

After discussions, the Contracting Officer may request revisions to the technical and/or cost volumes of the offer. The Contracting Officer requests final revisions in writing from Offerors within the competitive range. The same basic rules apply to evaluation of final revisions as were applied to the original evaluation. The written evaluation of final proposal revisions is separate and apart from the basic evaluation and must cover the differences, if any, between the final proposal revision and the original proposal.

Pursuant to FAR 15.307, Offerors within the competitive range may be given several opportunities to submit proposal revisions; however, subsequent requests for final proposal revisions shall be used only when necessary and unavoidable. When discussions are concluded, the Contracting Officer establishes a common cutoff date for receipt of final proposal revisions. The Contracting Officer requests in writing (via letter or amendment) final proposal revisions and advises Offerors that the revisions shall be in writing and that the Government intends to make an award without obtaining further revisions.

The Contracting Officer should re-evaluate the Solicitation and any amendments prior to issuing a request for final proposal revisions to ensure regulatory compliance, the inclusion of mandatory clauses and provisions, and that the terms and conditions are clear, concise, and not subject to interpretation. Should further amendment of the Solicitation be necessary, the Contracting Officer must issue the amendment prior to or concurrent with requesting final proposal revisions. Offerors shall acknowledge receipt and acceptance of final amendment, if any, upon submission of final proposal revisions.

After receipt of final proposal revisions, minor informalities may be clarified without an additional request for final offers from all Offerors. However, if further negotiations are needed, a second final offer opportunity may be extended to all Offerors that remain in the competitive range. The Contracting Officer shall obtain approval to request additional final proposal revisions in the form of a Business Case Memorandum (BCM) with a detailed explanation of why an additional round of proposal revisions is necessary.

3.7 Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Compliance Requirement

Top of Page

Before a contract can be awarded, the Contractor and/or subcontractor must be in compliance with Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) requirements (see FAR 22.8).

Compliance. The Contracting Officer shall confirm EEO compliance for all Contractors and first-tier subcontractors prior to award of contracts valued at or exceeding $10 million. The Contracting Officer shall obtain verification of EEO compliance from the Department of Labor (DOL) Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program (OFCCP) for each contract and first-tiered subcontract valued at $10 million or more (base award plus options). This includes Letter Contracts, Indefinite Delivery Contracts (IDCs), Basic Ordering Agreements (BOAs), and modifications that increase the aggregate contract value to $10 million or more.

To verify compliance, the Contracting Officer shall search the OFCCP national registry. The Contracting Officer must document proof of the Contractor’s compliance in the Business Case Memorandum (BCM) (see BCM Module) and print the registry results page as documentation for the contract file. Should the Contractor/subcontractor not be listed in the registry, the Contracting Officer shall request a pre-award clearance by letter or fax from the pertinent OFCCP regional office (see also FAR 22.609). See the attached Sample Request Letter for EEO Compliance Clearance. The OFCCP response shall be documented in the BCM and retained in the contract file.

Timeliness. Requests must reach OFCCP no later than 15 days prior to proposed award date. If OFCCP does not inform the Contracting Officer of its intention to conduct a pre-award compliance evaluation within 15 days of the pre-award review request, clearance shall be presumed, and the Contracting Officer is authorized to award the contract. If OFCCP does inform the Contracting Officer of its intention to conduct a pre-award compliance evaluation within 15 days of the pre-award review request, OFCCP shall be allowed an additional 20 days after the date that it so informs the Contracting Officer. If OFCCP does not provide the Contracting Officer with its conclusions within that 20-day period, clearance shall be presumed, and the Contracting Officer is authorized to award the contract. Further, if any of the aforementioned time lines would delay a critical award beyond the time needed by the Government to make award or beyond the time specified in the bid or proposal, or an extension thereof, the Contracting Officer shall immediately inform the OFCCP regional office of the required award date. Also, if OFCCP determines that the review cannot be completed by the imposed date, the Contracting Officer shall submit written justification for the award to the Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA), who, after informing the OFCCP regional office, may then approve award without the pre-award clearance.

Inquiries. Any inquiry by a Contractor regarding the status of their pre-award compliance review shall be referred to the cognizant regional OFCCP office.

Complaints. Complaints received by the Contracting Officer alleging violation of the requirements of E.O. 11246 shall be referred immediately to the OFCCP regional office. The complainant shall be advised in writing by the Contracting Officer of the referral. The Contractor that is the subject of a complaint shall not be advised in any manner or for any reason of the complainant's name, the nature of the complaint, or the fact that the complaint was received.

Contractor Violations. Should any Contractor performing on a Federal Government contract be found in violation of EO 11246, one or more of the actions at FAR 22.809 shall be imposed.

3.8 Business Case Memorandum (BCM)

Top of Page

The Business Case Memorandum (BCM), also referred to as the Pre/Post-Negotiation Memorandum (PNM), describes in detail how the Pre-negotiation Objective and Post-Negotiation Position are developed as well as the basis for the evaluation methods utilized. The procurement strategy developed during the Planning phase dictates which evaluation methods are utilized. The BCM reflects the evaluation results and the source selection decision by the Source Selection Authority (SSA).

The BCM demonstrates that all pre- and post-award compliances have been met and that the proposed contract action conforms to law, regulation, and Commerce and NOAA acquisition policies. The overall purpose of the BCM is to demonstrate good business judgment and that the price established is fair and reasonable. A BCM is also used to document the competitive range decision when discussions are required.

A Pre-negotiation BCM demonstrates to the approving official that the Government is ready to either enter into discussions or award without discussions (award on initial offer) based on the analysis and discussion of the Offeror’s proposal, audit positions, and Pre-negotiation Objective. A Post-negotiation BCM documents information presented by both parties during the negotiation/discussion process and provides rationale for the negotiated position.

When establishing milestones for the procurement, adequate time should be allocated for completion, review, and approval of any BCMs. The Pre-negotiation BCM must be approved prior to establishing the competitive range (or prior to award when discussions are not necessary and award is made on initial offer) and the Post-Negotiation BCM must be approved prior to contract award.

BCMs provide an audit trail for post-award review, if necessary, and serve as key evidence to support contracting decisions in the case of disputes or higher-level reviews, such as those by the General Accountability Office (GAO) or the Department of Commerce Inspector General (DOC IG). Also, the BCM serves as a guide for future negotiations. For this reason, BCMs should be all-inclusive, stand-alone documents, containing all supporting data required to tell the whole story within the BCM itself.

Contracting Officers shall not enter into discussions or award a contract prior to approval of the appropriate BCM.

All BCMs must be routed for approval. The scope and depth of the analysis in a BCM is directly related to the dollar value, importance, and complexity of the business decision. Likewise, the approval thresholds are commensurate with the magnitude and complexity of the documented action to be reviewed. Approval authorities review the BCM to ensure that the following are clearly and adequately documented:

Sound business judgment.
Evidence that the position is in the best interest of NOAA.
Policy/Regulatory/Statutory compliance.
When cost analysis is required, pertinent issues to be negotiated, cost objectives, and a profit/fee objective.

Approving Officials are specified on page 2 of the BCM cover sheet. Legal and Acquisition review/approval are required in accordance with NOAA Acquisition Handbook, Part 4, DAO 208-05, Procurement Memorandum (PM) 2010-04, PM 2011-05, Acquisition Alerts - AA 10-04 and AA 10-05.

Contracting Officers may complete several BCMs during a given procurement to document and obtain approval of various business decisions. BCMs are required most commonly for the following negotiated contract actions:

· Initial contract award or follow-on.

· Contract modifications (e.g., pursuant to Definitization, Changes, or Government Furnished Property (GFP) Clause).

A good Pre-negotiation BCM demonstrates that the Contracting Officer has prepared for negotiations/discussions; a good Post-Negotiation BCM demonstrates that the deal is a good one.

	Contract Actions	Case Documentation Required
Non-commercial	Micro-purchase threshold to the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT)	Simplified Acquisition Documentation Record
	Greater than the SAT	BCM Under FAR Part 15
	Micro-purchase threshold to $1M for Emergency Acquisitions	EA KO Simplified Acquisition Documentation Record
Commercial	Micro-purchase threshold to the SAT	Simplified Acquisition Documentation Record¹
	Greater than the SAT up to $6.5M	Streamlined BCM Using SAP Under FAR Subpart 13.5
	Micro-purchase threshold to $1M for Emergency Acquisitions	EA KO Simplified Acquisition Documentation Record
	Greater than $1M up to $12M for Contingency Operations	Streamlined BCM Using SAP Under FAR Subpart 13.5
	Greater than $6.5M pursuant to FAR Part 15	BCM Under FAR Part 15
Notes

3.8.1 Types of Business Clearance Memoranda (BCM) Top of Page

3.8.1.1 Pre-Negotiation BCM Top of Page

Contracting Officers must complete Pre-negotiation BCMs to demonstrate to the Approving Official that they are ready to enter into negotiations – either with the Offerors within the competitive range or with the justified sole-source Offeror.

The Pre-negotiation BCM should discuss and document the rationale behind the following:

Offeror(s) position.
SSEB, C/PAT, and PPET Report recommendations.
The Contracting Officer’s initial negotiation position, explaining the analysis of the evaluations considering all pertinent information such as field pricing assistance, audit reports, technical analysis, fact-finding results, Independent Government Cost Estimates (IGCE), and price histories.
Any applicable compliance.

The Contracting Officer must have a thorough understanding of all analyses to adequately prepare for negotiations. Technical and/or cost discussions shall not be held with any Offerors prior to approval of the Pre-negotiation (or competitive range) BCM. With respect to sole-source procurements, however, some preliminary discussions may need to occur in order to develop a Pre-negotiation Objective. Those instances should be clearly documented as fact-finding sessions only so as not to be misconstrued as the commencement of formal negotiations.

Sole-source or competitive, the Pre-negotiation BCM should provide thorough analysis, to include discussion of the offer(s), DCAA audit positions, technical analysis, and a clear negotiation objective. Again, Contracting Officers are depended upon by the public to –

Develop objectives that represent the best interests of the Government/taxpayers.
Command trust by documenting the facts and analysis behind the decisions.

In a competitive environment, the Pre-negotiation BCM is also used to document the basis for determining the competitive range and affirm price and non-price discussion topics to be addressed with each Offeror. A BCM supporting the competitive range determination must be approved before any Offeror is notified that its offer was determined to be outside of the competitive range and no longer eligible for award.

When conducting pre-negotiation analysis for negotiated procurements under FAR 15, the Contracting Officer should document findings using the FAR 15 BCM Template. When negotiating procurements for commercial items using Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP) under FAR 13.5, Contracting Officers should use the SAP Pre/Post-Negotiation BCM Template.

3.8.1.1.1 Establishing the Competitive Range Top of Page

The Government may determine a need to conduct discussions with Offerors. Before conducting discussions, the Government must establish a competitive range and document the decision/rationale in a Pre-negotiation BCM. In general, a competitive range should be established only after the Government has evaluated each offer in accordance with all evaluation factors in the Solicitation, including cost/price. That is not to say, however, that the Government must under all circumstances consider the Offeror’s proposed cost/price before it eliminates that offer from the competitive range.

The Contracting Officer and the SSA must take care in establishing the competitive range. As such, it is important to have Counsel’s concurrence and involvement in the competitive range determination. The Government’s failure to properly establish a competitive range may have the following consequences:

· Offerors improperly eliminated from the competitive range could file protests.

· Offerors that should have been included in the competitive range were not and, in retrospect, could have revised or modified their offers to such an extent that their offers would have been the best value to the Government.

· Offerors who are not likely to be selected for award had to continue expending bid and proposal costs on a competition they had no reasonable chance of winning, instead of shifting their bid and proposal costs to competitions in which they have a better chance for success.

FAR 15.306(c) states that the competitive range shall consist of all of the most highly rated offers, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency (as specified in the Solicitation). To determine whether an offer is one of the most highly rated and should be included in the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, consider the following:

· Whether a “clean break” or “bright line” exists between offers to be included in the competitive range and those that will not be included. For example, some offers are substantially stronger in various areas associated with non-cost/price evaluation criteria than others.

· Even if a large number of offers are received, they all may still be the most highly-rated and therefore should be included in the competitive range.

· Expected dollar value of the award(s).

· Complexity of the acquisition and solutions proposed.

· Other relevant matters consistent with the need to obtain the best value.

Note that it is permissible to establish a competitive range of one. Irrespective of how many offers are included in the competitive range, the SSA and Contracting Officer must determine which are the most highly-rated offers, and the Contracting Officer must document that determination and its supporting rationale in a BCM.

After establishing the competitive range, the Contracting Officer must provide written notification to each Offeror that does not fall within the competitive range. This notification shall state the following:

That its offer has been eliminated from consideration for award.
The basis for the determination.
That a revised offer will not be considered.

The Offeror is entitled to a pre-award debriefing if requested in writing within three (3) days after receipt of the notice of exclusion (see FAR 15.505). At the Offeror's request, this debriefing may be delayed until after award. If delayed, the debriefing shall include all information normally provided in a post-award debriefing (see FAR 15.506(d)). If the Offeror does not submit a timely request, the Offeror need not be given either a pre-award or a post-award debriefing. Offerors are entitled to no more than one debriefing for each offer.

Note: The basis for determining the competitive range can be included as a component of the Pre-negotiation BCM or can be submitted as a Competitive Range Determination BCM in advance of the Pre-negotiation BCM.

3.8.1.2 Post-Negotiation BCM Top of Page

Post-Negotiation BCMs document information presented by both the Government and industry during the negotiation process and provide rationale for the settlement position achieved by the Contracting Officer. They also serve to document any changes in the Pre-negotiation Objective. Post-Negotiation BCMs should document the following:

All significant facts considered in reaching a settlement position/agreement, as well as the implications of the negotiation on cost/price.
For competitive negotiated acquisitions, the historical record of the source selection process where factors in addition to price may serve as the primary basis for award.
The historical record of the business/pricing aspects of the procurement and written justification that the price established is fair and reasonable.
If variances exist between the initial Pre-negotiation Objective and the final negotiated price, documentation of the variances.
Any applicable compliances (See APG 3.8.7.1).

If the Pre-negotiation BCM objectives were achieved during negotiations, a Post-Negotiation BCM is still required; however, the Contracting Officer may request, in the Pre-negotiation BCM, a waiver of higher-level approval of the Post-Negotiation BCM. For instance, a Pre-negotiation BCM may include the following on the signature page: “Request authority to waive the requirement for approval above the Contracting Officer of the Post-Negotiation BCM if all objectives are achieved.” Again, this does not waive the requirement to write a Post-Negotiation BCM but rather the requirement to obtain signatures beyond that of the Contracting Officer drafting the BCM. The Post-Negotiation BCM should be included in the contract file.

When conducting post-negotiation analysis for negotiated procurements under FAR 15, the Contracting Officer should document findings using the same FAR 15 BCM Template, referencing the Pre-negotiation BCM by number and incorporating its contents by reference. See APG 3.8.6.

When negotiating procurements for commercial items using SAP under FAR 13.5, Contracting Officers should use the SAP Post-Negotiation BCM Template referencing the Pre-negotiation BCM by number and incorporating it as an attachment to provide continuity and background information.

3.8.1.3 Combined Pre/Post-Negotiation BCM Top of Page

Pre/Post-Negotiation BCMs contain all of the requirements of both the pre and post-negotiation clearance documentation. Pre/Post-Negotiation BCMs are used when the Contracting Officer makes an award on initial offer(s).

In negotiated procurements under FAR 15, the Contracting Officer will use the same FAR 15 BCM Template, documenting the steps/analysis leading to the decision to award on initial offers and the award decision itself. In negotiated procurements for commercial items using SAP under FAR 13.5, the Contracting Officer will document the analysis and award decision using the SAP Pre/Post-Negotiation BCM Template.

3.8.2 Price/Cost Analysis Top of Page

Price/Cost Analysis is a crucial step in the business case process. The Contracting Officer is responsible for determining whether an offer is fair and reasonable (also referred to as price reasonableness), which is defined as what a prudent person would pay for a product or service under similar market conditions with buyers and sellers free to bargain. The BCM for every contract action must contain a documented price reasonableness determination. This determination can be reached through several avenues depending upon the individual procurement and information available. Price Analysis is conducted on all procurements. Cost Analysis is conducted when Cost or Pricing Data are required or when Price Analysis fails to show the price to be fair and reasonable.

A comparison of Price Analysis and Cost Analysis is summarized in the following chart from the Army Source Selection Guide, February 2007:

Comparison of Price, Cost, Cost Realism, and Profit Analyses

Price Analysis

Cost Analysis

Cost Realism Analysis

Profit/Fee Analysis

What is it?

The process of examining and evaluating an Offeror's proposed price to determine if it is fair and reasonable without evaluating its separate cost elements and proposed profit/fee.

Price analysis always involves some sort of comparison with other prices; e.g., comparing an Offeror's proposed price with the proposed prices of competing Offerors or with previously proposed prices for the same or similar items.

The review and evaluation of the separate cost elements and profit/fee in an Offeror's proposal and the application of judgment to determine how well the proposed costs represent what the cost of the contract should be, assuming reasonable economy and efficiency.

The process of independently evaluating specific elements of each Offeror's cost estimate to determine whether the estimated cost elements are:

• Realistic for the work to be                                                      performed;
• Reflect a clear understanding       of the requirements; and
• Are consistent with the unique       methods of performance and       materials described in the       Offeror’s technical proposal.

The most probable cost estimate is a product of a cost realism analysis.

The process of examining the proposed profit or fee to determine if it is reasonable in light of the associated risks.

.

When must you perform it?

On all procurements (even when cost analysis is conducted) to determine if the overall price is fair and reasonable.

When cost or pricing data is required.

Also you may use it to evaluate information other than cost or pricing data to determine cost reasonableness or cost realism.

When cost- reimbursement contracts are anticipated.
Also you may use it on FP incentive contracts or, in exceptional cases, on other competitive FP contracts when the Offerors may not fully understand new requirements, there are quality concerns, or past experience indicates Contractors' proposed costs have resulted in quality/service shortfalls.

When cost analysis is performed.

3.8.2.1 Price Analysis Top of Page

Price Analysis is the process of examining and evaluating a proposed price without evaluating its separate cost elements. Several techniques can be used to perform Price Analysis; FAR 15.404-1 contains seven:

(i) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the Solicitation. Normally, adequate price competition establishes price reasonableness (see FAR 15.403-1(c)(1)).

(ii) Comparison of previously proposed prices and previous Government and commercial contract prices with current proposed prices for the same or similar items, if both the validity of the comparison and the reasonableness of the previous price(s) can be established.

(iii) Use of parametric estimating methods/application of rough yardsticks (such as dollars per pound or per horsepower, or other units) to highlight significant inconsistencies that warrant additional pricing inquiry.

(iv) Comparison with competitive published price lists, published market prices of commodities, similar indexes, and discount or rebate arrangements.

(v) Comparison of proposed prices with Independent Government Cost Estimates (IGCEs).

(vi) Comparison of proposed prices with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar items.

(vii) Analysis of pricing information provided by the Offeror.

For procurements in which cost or pricing data are not obtained, documenting price reasonableness in the BCM may require the utilization of more than one price analysis technique and as many techniques as necessary to support price reasonableness should be utilized and documented. The first two FAR techniques (i and ii above) are preferred, but if the Contracting Officer determines that information on competitive proposed prices or previous contract prices is not available or insufficient to determine fair and reasonable pricing, he/she may use any of the remaining techniques as appropriate to the individual procurement.

The following flowchart depicts the seven techniques in order of preference and the associated documentation required in the BCM when using each technique to document the price as fair and reasonable:

BCM

Documentation

FAR 15.404-1

Price Analysis Techniques

3.8.2.1.1 Price Analysis Techniques Top of Page

1. Adequate Price Competition. This is the most preferred price analysis technique, as competition usually yields the best obtainable price. When using this technique, determine if the competition meets the requirements of Adequate Price Competition under FAR 15.403-1:

· Two or more responsible Offerors, competing independently, submit priced offers that satisfy the Government’s expressed requirement.

· Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best value where price is a substantial factor in source selection.

· There is no finding that the price of the otherwise successful Offeror is unreasonable.

If adequate price competition exists, make a summary of all offers received and document the Price Analysis in the BCM.

To be able to use this technique in competitive procurements in which only one offer is received (commonly referred to as “one-bid situations”), the Contracting Officer must fully document the expectation of multiple competitors as well as the expectation for more than one bid. The Contracting Officer should also consider whether or not the one-bid Contractor might have known that it was the only bidder. Example:

A Contractor obtains a quote for a part from the only subcontractor in town who manufactures said part. In this scenario, the Contractor asks the subcontractor if it has received any other requests for quote. A negative reply from the subcontractor reveals that the Contractor is likely the sole bidder.

This concept is important because Contractors who think they are the only bidder may inflate their prices. Even in competitive procurements in which multiple offers are received, it is important that the reasonableness of the negotiated price be supported and documented in the BCM whether through adequate price competition or other analyses. For example, if competitive offers received are greatly disparate, this may indicate a lack of understanding of the Solicitation requirements and may not reflect adequate competition or represent reasonable pricing.

If there are unusual circumstances where it is concluded that additional information is necessary to determine the reasonableness of price, the Contracting Officer shall, to the maximum extent practicable, obtain the additional information from sources other than the Offeror. Additionally, the Contracting Officer may request other than cost or pricing data to determine the cost realism of competing offers or to evaluate competing approaches.

2. Historical Prices. Prices paid for the same item in the past are a good basis for Price Analysis in the present. Adjust the historical price to reflect changes in market conditions, economic conditions, quantities, terms, and conditions. If historical pricing is available, the Contracting Officer must be sure to not only provide the historical pricing but also to provide evidence of fair and reasonable determination of the last price paid.

A historical comparison with prices for the same or like items should be used whenever possible. The comparative analysis should include comments verifying the reasonableness of previous prices (see FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(ii)) and adjustments made for quantity, time, breaks in production, etc. The historical prices used as a comparison should be stated in or attached to the BCM, and any difference between the item being procured and the item previously purchased, as well as the impact of those differences on the price, should be documented. If there is a substantial cost or technical difference, the BCM must explain why the comparison is still valid as a basis for the price reasonableness determination.

3. Parametric Estimates. This technique incorporates cost estimating relationships and rules of thumb, based on historical data. According to the Parametric Cost Estimating Handbook (http://cost.jsc.nasa.gov/PCEHHTML/pceh.htm), the origins of parametric cost estimating date back to World War II:

The war caused a demand for military aircraft in numbers and models that far exceeded anything the aircraft industry had manufactured before. While there had been some rudimentary work from time to time to develop parametric techniques for predicting cost, there was no widespread use of any cost estimating technique beyond a laborious buildup of labor-hours and materials. A type of statistical estimating had been suggested in 1936 by T. P. Wright in the Journal of Aeronautical Science. Wright provided equations which could be used to predict the cost of airplanes over long production runs, a theory which came to be called the learning curve. By the time the demand for airplanes had exploded in the early years of World War II, industrial engineers were using Wright's learning curve to predict the unit cost of airplanes.

Another example of when parametric estimates would be appropriate would be if a Solicitation included the lease of a 70,000 square foot building. A proposal is received at $75 per square foot, but market research discovers that the market price for an office building is $69 per square foot. To properly evaluate the proposal, the Contracting Officer must be able to identify any features of the Solicitation that could affect the cost estimating relationship, such as added security, state of the art phone systems, surveillance equipment, etc. These features would be quantified and the price adjusted accordingly.

If used, the nature of parametric estimates and the source of the data should be documented in the BCM.

4. Catalog or Market Price. Catalogs and published price lists are usually a product of a competitive market place. Catalog Prices must be regularly maintained, specify current or last sales price, and be published or otherwise available for inspection. DCAA (or other cognizant audit agency) also may substantiate sales for commercial items.

The use of a commercial price/parts list in and of itself does not justify the price to be fair and reasonable (FAR 15‑403.3(c)). The Contracting Officer must also confirm and document that quantities were sold at the prices listed, identify to whom they were sold, and consider whether or not a price reduction is warranted because of the purchase quantity. Before the price can be determined reasonable, the Contracting Officer should also be aware of any discounts, rebates, or the best price paid by any of the Contractor’s commercial customers. The Contracting Officer should consider prices paid under similar contracts in which the item may not have been considered commercial.

The BCM must also document the differences, if any, between the catalog item and the item to be procured, and the price/cost impact of those differences. The commercial prices used as a comparison should be stated in the BCM and catalogs or price lists should be included as attachments.

5. Independent Government Cost Estimate. An IGCE is usually developed by the Project Office to determine the expected cost of producing an end item or providing a service. The IGCE should include material, labor hours, and labor rates at a minimum. An IGCE is used when no other pricing method is available. An IGCE is normally based on a visual analysis or a value analysis by an expert in the commodity field of the product/service being procured. When an IGCE is used, the Contracting Officer should understand that the estimator made certain assumptions. The Contracting Officer should thoroughly review the IGCE to understand the assumptions made, the source of the information, and the pricing methods applied.

6. Similar Products. The current market price of similar supplies or services to those being procured can be established through market research. Market research to determine price reasonableness involves contacting commercial entities with the capabilities to perform the contract and obtaining the current market prices for the same or similar items under the same conditions stipulated in the proposal received.

This method is most commonly used for items that are readily available from commercial sources but that must be purchased to the maximum extent practicable from Required Sources of Supplies and Services such as Federal Prison Industries (see FAR 8.602(a)). When using this method, the Contracting Officer should compare the proposed price with prices received through market research and describe the market research conducted. For more information on conducting market research, see APG Planning Module Section 1.3.

7. Pricing Information provided by the Contractor. When independent techniques fail to establish a fair and reasonable price, the Contracting Officer should ask the Contractor to support the proposed price by supplying pricing information such as sales history to other customers, proposal history, or information other than cost or pricing data.

The primary difference between “Cost or Pricing Data” and “Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data” is the certification required by FAR 15.406-2. Contracting Officers should ask for whatever information is necessary to make and support their price reasonableness determination. If there isn’t enough pricing information available to make the determination, the Contracting Officer may ask for cost related data. None of the information/data provided as “Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data” is required to be certified.

These seven Price Analysis techniques are further explained in the Federal Acquisition Institute and Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) Contract Pricing Reference Guides Volume 1-Price Analysis. See also DAU Price Analysis Techniques Training Material and Commercial Sole Source Proposal Analysis Roadmap.

3.8.2.1.2 Documenting Price Reasonableness Top of Page

When approving a BCM using other than cost or pricing data, the approving official must ensure that the document as written, documents the following:

· The exception (from FAR 15.403-1(c)(1) through (4)) for not obtaining cost or pricing data.

· Price reasonableness, without reliance on information that is not in the BCM unless properly referenced and retained in the contract file.

· The comparisons and differences in the item being procured and any items being compared.

If an Offeror refuses to provide information necessary to support the Contracting Officer’s determination of price reasonableness, the issue should be elevated to higher management until the issue is resolved. Management should take actions as necessary to assist in obtaining adequate pricing information. A determination of price reasonableness cannot be made without adequate supporting documentation, and without adequate price reasonableness determination, the Contractor shall not receive award. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the Government and Contractor alike that adequate information be provided.

Common pitfalls that Contracting Officers need to be aware of when determining price reasonableness, include:

· Not performing market research appropriate to the circumstances.

· Accepting catalog prices without additional review or verification of items actually being sold at prices listed.

· Not justifying prior prices used for comparison as reasonable.

· Prices justified as competitive when no competition truly exists.

· Accepted costs that were not supported or warranted.

· Failure to request discounts based upon quantity buys.

· Failure to make adequate efforts to use competition.

· Contract files not properly documented to support determination justification.

3.8.3 Cost Analysis Top of Page

Cost analysis is the review and evaluation of the separate cost elements and profit in an Offeror’s proposal (including cost or pricing data or information other than cost or pricing data), and the application of judgment to determine how well the proposed costs represent what the cost of the contract should be, assuming reasonable economy and efficiency.

Cost Analysis is required in the following situations:

· When Price Analysis does not result in a fair and reasonable price determination.

· When cost or pricing data are required by Public Law 87-653, Truth In Negotiations Act (TINA), exceptions under FAR 15.403-1(b) do not exist, and the procurement value exceeds the threshold in FAR 15.403-4.

· TINA is a public law enacted for the purpose of providing for full and fair disclosure by Contractors in the conduct of negotiations with the Government. The most significant provision included in TINA is the requirement that Contractors submit certified cost and pricing data for negotiated procurements above a defined threshold.

Nearly all of our acquisitions will meet one of the exceptions listed in FAR 15.403-1(b).

Whenever Cost Analysis is performed, the Contracting Officer should also perform Price Analysis as a Cost Realism check on the supplier’s cost data. (See APG Evaluation Module Section 3.8.3.4 for a discussion of Cost Realism.)

The Contract Pricing Reference Guides provide additional guidance on how to analyze individual cost elements. See:

Volume 1 – Price Analysis

Volume 2 – Quantitative Techniques for Contract Pricing

Volume 3 – Cost Analysis

Volume 4 – Advanced Issues in Contract Pricing

Volume 5 – Federal Contract Negotiation Techniques

3.8.3.1 Insufficient Price Analysis Top of Page

Normally, competition and catalog prices suffice in determining price reasonableness. In certain circumstances, however, it may be appropriate to perform Cost Analysis on competitive or catalog-priced contracts. The following chart illustrates examples of situations in which Cost Analysis is recommended due to insufficient Price Analysis information:

SINGLE SOURCE	COMPETITION	CATALOG PRICE
Contracts that contain a complex work statement or Spec	Cost-Reimbursable Contracts	Special Tooling or Test Equipment
High dollar supplies or services	Construction Projects	Highly Customized or Modified Products
Contract modifications	Maintenance & Repair contracts	Transportation Services and Travel Costs

3.8.3.2 Discussion of Cost Analysis Techniques Top of Page

The Government may use various cost analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price, given the circumstances of the acquisition. Per FAR 15.404-1(c)(2), such techniques and procedures include the following:

(i) Verification of cost or pricing data and evaluation of cost elements, including--

(A) The necessity for, and reasonableness of, proposed costs, including allowances for contingencies;

(B) Projection of the Offeror’s cost trends, on the basis of current and historical cost or pricing data;

(C) Reasonableness of estimates generated by appropriately calibrated and validated parametric models or cost-estimating relationships; and

(D) The application of audited or negotiated indirect cost rates, labor rates, and cost of money or other factors.

(ii) Evaluating the effect of the Offeror’s current practices on future costs. In conducting this evaluation, the Contracting Officer shall ensure that the effects of inefficient or uneconomical past practices are not projected into the future. In pricing production of recently developed complex equipment, the Contracting Officer should perform a trend analysis of basic labor and materials, even in periods of relative price stability.

(iii)Comparison of costs proposed by the Offeror for individual cost elements with--

(A) Actual costs previously incurred by the same Offeror;

(B) Previous cost estimates from the Offeror or from other Offerors for the same or similar items;

(D) IGCE by technical personnel; and

(E) Forecasts of planned expenditures.

(iv) Verification that the Offeror’s cost submissions are in accordance with the contract cost principles and procedures in FAR 31 and, when applicable, the requirements and procedures in 48 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Chapter 99 (Appendix to the FAR loose-leaf edition), Cost Accounting Standards.

(v) Review to determine whether any cost or pricing data necessary to make the Contractor’s proposal accurate, complete, and current have not been either submitted or identified in writing by the Contractor. If there are such data, the Contracting Officer shall attempt to obtain them and negotiate, using them or making satisfactory allowance for the incomplete data.

(vi) Analysis of the results of any make-or-buy program reviews, in evaluating subcontract costs (see FAR 15.407-2).

3.8.3.3 Exceptions to Cost or Pricing Data Top of Page

The Contracting Officer is responsible for obtaining information that is adequate for evaluating the reasonableness of the price or determining cost realism. Such information could include cost or pricing data or other than cost and pricing data, depending on the acquisition. As such, the Contracting Officer shall obtain cost and pricing data only if none of the exceptions to cost and pricing data apply. The Contracting Officer, however, may require information other than cost and pricing data to support a determination of price reasonableness or cost realism. FAR 15.403-1(b) explains the exceptions to the requirement for Cost or Pricing Data as follows:

1. Adequate Price Competition. The determination of “adequate” competition should be based on the criteria in FAR 15.403-1(c)(1); however, if there are unusual circumstances where it is concluded that additional information is necessary to determine the reasonableness of price, the Contracting Officer shall, to the maximum extent practicable, obtain the additional information from sources other than the Offeror. In addition, the Contracting Officer may request information to determine the cost realism of competing offers or to evaluate competing approaches.

2. Prices Set by Law or Regulation. When the Contractor claims an exemption based on Prices Set by Law or Regulation, it should be verified. The Contractor should identify the law or regulation establishing the price offered. The Contractor should attach a copy of the controlling document or ruling.

3. Commercial Items. The Contracting Officer should verify the commerciality of the item. Commerciality requires that the item meet the definition in FAR 2.101. The Sellers’ Sales History should be obtained to verify Commerciality. Although an SF 1412 is no longer required, the Sales History associated with it may still be required to verify commerciality per FAR 12.

Modifications of a commercial item are exempt from the requirement for submission of cost or pricing data provided the total cost of all such modifications under a particular contract action does not exceed the greater of $500,000 or 5 percent of the total price of the contract. Modifications of a commercial item are not exempt from the requirement for submission of cost or pricing data on the basis of the exemption provided for at FAR 15.403-1(c)(3) if the total price of all such modifications under a particular contract action exceeds the greater of $500,000 or 5 percent of the total price of the contract.

4. Modifying an existing Commercial Contract or Subcontract.

5. Waivers. The Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA) may waive the requirement for submission of Cost or Pricing Data in exceptional cases. The reason for the waiver should be fully documented.

6. Other circumstances (FAR 15.403-2). Exercise of an option at the price established at contract award or proposals for overrun funding or interim billing price adjustments.

3.8.3.4 Cost Realism Analysis Top of Page

Cost Realism Analysis determines if proposed costs are realistic for the work to be performed. It uses basic Cost Analysis techniques to evaluate the proposed cost elements from the following perspectives:

· Are they realistic in comparison to the historical data?

· Do they show a clear understanding of the work to be performed?

· Are they consistent with the solution described in the technical proposal?

The result of Cost Realism Analysis is an adjustment to the Offeror’s proposed cost (and fee when appropriate) to reflect additions or reductions in cost elements to reach a realistic estimate. This probable cost should reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost of any contract resulting from the Contractor’s offer. The probable cost may differ from the proposed cost and shall be used for evaluation purposes to arrive at the Government’s Pre-negotiation Objective.

Some factors that may be adjusted as a result of Cost Realism Analysis are direct labor hours, labor hour rates, materials, subcontracts, indirect rates, and other direct costs. Three important areas considered during Cost Realism Analysis are:

Substantiation of Costs – Cost credibility rests entirely with the Offeror to support estimates with historical costs, past experience on similar programs, sufficient narrative descriptions of methodologies, and supporting data used to develop hours, rates, costs, etc.
Traceability – Particularly in the Basis of Estimates matching the tables, the Work Breakdown Structure, and Section B.
Completeness – Ensure that the Offeror provides everything requested in Section L.

It is incumbent upon the Government to ensure that all information required to perform the Cost Realism Analysis is requested in Section L of the Solicitation.

Contracting Officers should consider the following when conducting Cost Realism Analysis:

Uncompensated Overtime (UCOT): Has excessive UCOT been proposed?
Temporary Labor: Is temporary labor excessive in the proposal?
Hours per Month: Do the proposed hours account for vacation and holidays?
Non-Recurring Costs (NRCs): Have any NRCs been omitted from the proposal?
Inventory Material: Is material priced at current market value?
Labor Rates: Are the proposed rates commensurate with the level of expertise required?

3.8.3.5 FAR Part 31 Contract Cost Principles Top of Page

Contract Cost Principles are applicable to cost analysis whenever Certified Cost or Pricing Data is required. FAR 31 defines an allowable cost. An allowable cost must satisfy the following conditions:

It must be Reasonable.
It must be Allocable.
In compliance with Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) or Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
In compliance with the contract.
In compliance with FAR 31.205.

Reasonableness. The test of reasonableness is based on what a “Prudent Person” would pay for an item sold in a competitive market place. Actual costs incurred by a Contractor are not reasonable unless they satisfy the “Prudent Person” test. The burden of proof is on the Contractor to establish that actual costs are reasonable.

Factors to consider in determining reasonableness include:

Is it ordinary and necessary?

Is it sound business practice?

Is it socially responsible?

Is it consistent with established practices?

Allocability. A cost can be allocated to a contract only if it benefits that contract in some way. Costs can be allocated to a contract either as direct charges or as indirect allocations such as Overhead and G&A expenses. The following criteria are used in determining Allocability:

Direct Costs – Must be required by the contract Statement of Work.

Overhead Costs – Must benefit both this contract and other work.

G&A Costs – Must be necessary for the overall operation of the business.

Compliance with CAS or GAAP. If the Contractor is subject to CAS, all costs allocated to the contract must be in compliance with all applicable CAS rules. A CAS non-compliance usually results in unallowable costs charged to the contract. Contractors must also comply with their disclosed accounting practices (see FAR 30).

If the Contractor is not subject to CAS, then all costs must be in compliance with GAAP. Accounting practices under GAAP should be appropriate for the particular circumstance.

Compliance with the contract. The terms of the contractual agreement can define an allowable cost. The contract will take precedence over FAR 31, unless the cost is expressly unallowable per FAR. The Contracting Officer may negotiate an advance agreement with the Contractor, addressing the allowability of certain costs. These agreements can help prevent disputes and aid in negotiations. Put these advance agreements in writing and incorporate them into the contract.

Compliance with FAR 31.205. FAR 31.205 covers selected costs and addresses allowable and unallowable costs. This section identifies 52 categories of costs. There are allowable and unallowable elements within each category. Certain costs are expressly unallowable.

Expressly Unallowable costs must be identified and excluded from any billings, claim, invoice, or proposal subject to Certified Cost or Pricing Data.

Most of the costs identified in this section appear in Indirect cost pools. An audit is necessary to identify these costs.

There are some direct costs that the Contracting Officer should identify and exclude from the Offeror’s proposal.

Unallowable Direct or Indirect Costs
FAR 31.205-7	Contingencies – Except when the effects are foreseeable and within reasonable limits of accuracy (e.g., material scrap factors).
FAR 31.205-18	Bid and Proposal Costs – Must be included in G&A or specifically required by the contract (e.g., letter contracts).
FAR 31.205-23	Losses on Other Contracts – Any excess of costs over income.
FAR 31.205-46	Travel Costs –To the extent they exceed the maximum per diem rates of the FTR or include first class airfare.
FAR 31.205-51	Cost of Alcoholic Beverages (e.g., employee expense reports).

Unallowable Indirect Costs
FAR 31.205-1	Advertising Costs – with some exceptions.
FAR 31.205-3	Bad Debts*
FAR 31.205-6	Executive Compensation in excess of $473,318.00 per year.
FAR 31.205-8	Contributions*
FAR 31.205-13	Employee Morale Costs of Gifts – with some exceptions. Costs of Recreation – with some exceptions. Losses from Food Services – with some exceptions.
FAR 31.205-14	Entertainment*
FAR 31.205-15	Fines and Penalties – with some exceptions.
FAR 31.205-17	Idle Facilities – with some exceptions.
FAR 31.205-20	Interest*
FAR 31.205-22	Lobbying – with some exceptions.
FAR 31.205-27	Organization Costs – with some exceptions.
FAR 31.205-31	Plant Reconversion – with some exceptions.
FAR 31.205-47	Legal Costs – with some exceptions.
FAR 31.205-48	Deferred R&D Costs – with exceptions.
FAR 31.205-49	Goodwill*

(*) Expressly Unallowable (U/A)

3.8.3.6 Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Top of Page

The Contracting Officer must be aware of generalities associated with the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) in order to adequately interpret DCAA audit reports and review Contractor proposals. Furthermore the Contracting Officer is responsible for reviewing the Contractor’s submitted Disclosure Statement which is a written description of a Contractor’s cost accounting practices and procedures. It is used as a means to measure the consistency and compliance of a Contractor’s day-to-day cost accounting with applicable CAS.

A Contractor may choose to structure its accounting system in any fashion as most standards provide numerous options in accounting techniques. The critical aspect of CAS is that the Contractor must be consistent in its accounting approach. For instance, a Contractor cannot choose to collect costs in one way to benefit a FFP type of contracting vehicle and then restructure its cost accounting methods under a cost type contract when it is more advantageous to do so. That would be in violation of CAS. It is critical that the Contracting Officer understand these principles in order to adequately and successfully review any submitted cost proposal. Even if the proposed action is not a CAS covered contract, if the Contractor has an approved cost accounting system, it should not be deviating from it regardless of the dollar thresholds of the isolated action.

Audit reports will often cite noncompliance with various CAS standards, and thus the Contracting Officer’s basic understanding of the standards is critical to effectively negotiate and understand the ramifications of what those violations mean to the proposed negotiation.

Applicability: Contracts awarded after April 1992 are subject to 48 CFR Part 9903, which has a $700,000 threshold. The Contracting Officer should include CAS Notices and Certification (see FAR 52.230-1) in each Solicitation expected to exceed $700,000. This certification must be completed and signed by the Offeror prior to the award of a contract. If an exemption to CAS is claimed by the Contractor, CAS does not apply, and there is no need to include CAS clauses in the contract agreement.

Exemptions: The following are some exceptions to CAS. To see a complete listing, refer to the CAS Coverage and Disclosure Statement Determination Flowchart.

Firm-Fixed Price Contracts or subcontracts awarded on the basis of competition without the submission of cost or pricing data.
Firm-Fixed Price Contracts or subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial items.
Contract or subcontract executed and performed entirely outside the United States, its territories, and its possessions.
Contracts/subcontracts with a small business.
Contracts or subcontracts with foreign governments, their agents or instrumentalities.

CAS Disclosure Statement: If no exemption to CAS is claimed, the Offeror must disclose their cost accounting practices, on Form CASB-DS-1, unless:

The Disclosure Statement was previously submitted.
The Offeror claims the monetary exemption ($50 Million).
The Offeror claims the interim exemption.

Types of CAS Coverage: A CAS covered contract can be subject to two types of coverage:

1. Full coverage. Full coverage requires that the business unit comply with all of the CAS in effect on the date of the contract award.

2. Modified coverage. Modified coverage requires only that the Contractor comply with CAS 401, 402, 405, and 406.

Offerors will disclose whether full or modified CAS coverage applies by completing FAR 52.230-1 Cost Accounting Standards Notices and Certification, Part II Eligibility for Modified Contract Coverage as requested by the Solicitation as follows:

If the box in Part II is not marked, full coverage applies. Include FAR 52.230-2 and FAR 52.230-6 in the contract.
If the box in Part II is marked, modified coverage applies. Include FAR 52.230-3 and FAR 52.230-6 in the contract.
If the Seller is an Educational Institution, modified coverage applies. Use FAR 52.230-5 and 52.230-6 in the contract.

The CAS Board (CASB) has issued a total of 19 CAS. The CASB had four objectives in establishing CAS. These objectives are summarized below:

1. Uniformity: To achieve a uniform set of cost accounting practices among different U.S. Government prime Contractors.

2. Consistency: The application of similar cost accounting techniques applied to similar projects, under similar contract types, in different time periods.

3. Comparability: The ability to compare cost data from different Contractors in different time periods to yield meaningful information.

4. Neutrality: To establish a neutral position in negotiations between the U.S. Government and prime Contractors over cost accounting methods.

Pension Protection Act (PPA): The Pension Protection Act of 2006 permits companies to voluntarily increase their pension contributions. In 2008, the PPA may cause Contractors to significantly increase their required minimum pension contribution for tax purposes; however, such funding changes will not necessarily result in increased costs on negotiated contracts, including Forward Pricing Rates (FPRs). If Contractors propose increased pension costs as a result of the PPA based on the current CAS, the cognizant ACO and auditor should be consulted before determining whether to include any proposed costs relating to the PPA in the contract price or FPRs.

3.8.4 Recommended Cost/Price Proposal or Evaluation Format Top of Page

Most Contractors have unique accounting systems that create or feed into their cost/price proposals. The output of such systems can be a challenge to simple and thorough cost evaluation. If Contractor data are cumbersome and poorly structured, the Contracting Officer may overlook existing issues with proposed costs and associated burdens. It is incumbent upon the Contracting Officer to re-structure raw data from cost/price proposals in such a format to allow for its manipulation and proper, thorough analysis. This restructuring may often illuminate errors or hidden costs within the Offeror’s proposal.

The Sample Proposal or Evaluation Format is an Excel spreadsheet that lays out a standard recommended format. Whether the action is multimillion-dollar sole source procurement, the definitization of a letter contract, or change order, the Sample Format can be prepared for all negotiated proposed actions. Instructions to Offerors provides direction to the Offerors on how to complete the Sample Format and what back-up documentation/raw data are required to support the analysis. Adherence to these directions streamline the evaluation process, mitigating requests for supplemental information from Offerors that could have been provided at the onset.

Contracting Officers can use the spreadsheet to enter raw data received from Offerors, or they can mandate the use of this format by Offerors in Section L of the RFP and provide the spreadsheet as an attachment to the Solicitation. The latter would help reduce the risk of keystroke errors; however, the Contracting Officer should always check the spreadsheets to ensure the integrity of the formulas.

To learn more about pricing techniques and factors that should be considered when developing the negotiation position.

3.8.5 BCM Under FAR 13.5 Test Program for Certain Commercial Items Top of Page

FAR 13 prescribes Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP) for the acquisition of supplies or services – including construction, research and development, and commercial items – below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT). SAP was developed largely to promote efficiency and economy and minimize administrative burden and cost for both Government and industry when contracting below various thresholds.

When procuring items greater than the micro-purchase threshold but less than or equal to the SAT, the Contracting Officer must document fair and reasonable price determination for the contract file in a Simplified Acquisition Documentation Record, but does not have to complete a formal BCM.

FAR 13.5 is a test program developed in the late 1990s authorizing the use of SAP for the acquisition of commercial supplies and services in amounts greater than the SAT but less than $6.5 million ($12 million for acquisitions as described in FAR 13.500(e)), including options. When procuring commercial items above the SAT, the Contracting Officer is required to complete a BCM; however, the BCM required is streamlined as compared to formal BCMs pursuant to FAR 15 acquisitions. The detail of the FAR Subpart 13.5 BCM shall be commensurate with the dollar value and complexity of the particular acquisition. See the SAP Pre/Post-Negotiation BCM Template and SAP Post-Negotiation BCM Template.

3.8.6 BCM Approval and Signature Page Instructions Top of Page

The following are instructions for completing the BCM Approval and Signature Page, which is used for both FAR 13.5 and FAR 15 procurements. The Approval and Signature Page should accompany each BCM and is included as the first two pages of each BCM template.

Page 1 – Cover Sheet shall be completed and submitted for signature when requesting Pre-negotiation and Post-Negotiation business cases. The Post-Negotiation information required on the Approval and Signature Page will be completed when requesting approval of the negotiated price.

1. Contracting Office: Insert local NOAA office.

2. Case Number: Locally assigned. Example – Location Acronym-Fiscal Year-four digit numerical tracking: NOAA AGO ERAD-06-0001.

3. PR No.: Input number received on PR via C.Request.

4. Appropriation Type: Insert type of funding. Example – 1 year FY 07, 2 year FY 06.

5. Competition Requirements and Authority: Double click and check boxes where instructed. To select from the drop-down menus, use arrows on right to bring selection to the top, then click OK.

6. Type of Contract: Double click the box to select from the drop-down menu.

7. Type of Order: Double click the box to select from the drop-down menu.

8. Clearance Total: Insert the total negotiated value to include all options.

9. Guaranteed Minimum: Insert the minimum dollar amount for IDIQ contracts.

10. Clearance

Block A: Indicate whether the BCM is a Pre-, Post-, or Combined Pre/Post-Negotiation BCM.

Block B: Indicate whether the BCM seeks authority to contract or to establish the competitive range.

Block C: Indicate whether the BCM is pursuant to FAR 12, FAR 13.5, and/or FAR 15.

11. Proposed Awardee and Address: Complete for Post- or Pre/Post-Negotiation BCMs.

12. Solicitation/Contract/Order No.: Insert information available, depending upon stage in the contracting process.

13. Program: Identify program name.

14. Description of Supplies/Services: Briefly describe the supplies or services to be procured.

15. Project Manager POC and Phone Number: Identify the Project Office POC.

16. FSC: Provide the Federal Supply Classification.

17. NAICS: Provide North American Industry Classification System Code for more information).

18. Delivery or POP: Separately delineate option periods, as applicable.

19. Pricing Structure: Complete Pre-negotiation and Post-Negotiation sections, as applicable.

Page 2 – Signature Page: Reviews and Approvals

20. Case No: Re-enter

21. Case Recommendation: For Contracting Officer/Chief of the Contracting Office’s (CCO’s) review, recommendations, and notes, if applicable.

22. Legal and Acquisition Reviews: Legal and Acquisition review/approval are required in accordance with NOAA Acquisition Handbook, Part 4; DAO 208-05, Procurement Memorandum (PM) 2010-04, PM 2011-05, Acquisition Alerts - AA 10-04 and AA 10-05.

23. Unconditional Approval, Conditional Approval, and Not Approved: The Approving Official will indicate if the BCM is approved, conditionally approved, or not approved. For BCMs that are not approved or are approved conditionally, the Approving Official will specify the conditions or reasons for not approving or conditionally approving. Generally for any conditionally approved BCMs, the Contracting Officer must ensure those conditions are met and documented in the Post-Negotiation BCM or contract file. Failure to comply with the conditions set forth by the Approval Official would require the Contracting Officer to resubmit the BCM to have the Approving Official modify or rescind the condition prior to contract execution. If all parties agree to the conditions and Pre-negotiation Objectives were achieved, the Contracting Officer need not seek subsequent signature from the Approving Official; however, the Contracting Officer is still required to make a record of their negotiations in a Post-Negotiation BCM format for inclusion in the contract file.

3.8.7 Pre-Negotiation Sections Top of Page

The guidance in this section maps directly to the FAR Part 15 BCM Template. It may also be used when preparing streamlined BCMs for FAR 13.5 procurements.

3.8.7.1 Compliances Top of Page

This section addresses mandatory compliances. If the compliance is not applicable to the contract action, indicate N/A (not applicable) and briefly state the reason. Some of the compliances below may be addressed instead in the Post-Negotiation BCM as appropriate.

For competitive procurements, document specific information for each Offeror.

1. Determinations and Findings (D&Fs)

(a) D&F to Use Time and Material Contract Type (see FAR 16.601(c)). A time-and-materials contract may be used only after the Contracting Officer executes a robust D&F demonstrating that no other contract type is suitable. The D&F must be approved by the HCA prior to execution of the base period when the base period plus any option periods exceeds three years. (Least desirable of all cost vehicles, as it provides no positive profit incentive to the Contractor for cost control or labor efficiency. Therefore, appropriate Government surveillance of Contractor performance is required to give reasonable assurance that efficient methods and effective cost controls are being used. In addition, there is no guarantee that appropriate staffing levels will match fixed rates.)

(b) D&F to Use Letter Contract (see FAR 16.603-3). For actions under $1 million, a Letter Contract may be used only after the HCO determines in writing that no other contract is suitable. For actions greater than $1 million, the determination must be made by Director, AGO.

(c) D&F to Exclude Source (see FAR 6.202 and FAR 1.7). A D&F is required if the Agency determines excluding a particular source from a contract action is in the best interest of the Government. Reasons for excluding a source may be to increase or maintain competition.

(d) D&F for Public Interest Circumstances Permitting Other Than Full and Open Competition (see FAR 6.302-7 and FAR 1.7). Permits other than full and open competition. Would also require a J&A citing this exclusion.

(e) D&F for Providing Government Facilities (see FAR 45.302-1). When a prospective Contractor asserts inability to obtain facilities, the Contracting Officer must execute a D&F that the contract cannot be fulfilled by any other practical means or that it is in the public interest for the Government to provide the facilities.

(f) D&F for Contractor Advisory and Assistance Services (see FAR 37.204) An HCO must execute a written determination that Government/FFRDC personnel are not available to evaluate the proposal.

2. Justification and Approvals (J&A)

(a) J&A Permitting Other Than Full and Open Competition (see FAR 6.303, NOAA Acquisition Handbook, Part 6, and APG Planning Module Section 1.8.2). A J&A is required in accordance with the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) for circumstances permitting other than full and open competition under FAR 6.302. The J&A must be signed by the appropriate authority for acquisitions above the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT).

Dollar Threshold	J&A Approval Level
$2,500 – $500K	Contracting Officer
> $500K – $10M	Competition Advocate – SBPO, Director NOAA AGO
> $10M – $50M	Head of Contracting Agency (HCA) (DUS for Oceans and Atmosphere)
> $50 million	Department of Commerce Senior Procurement Executive (SPE)

Per the NOAA Acquisition Handbook, the following concurrences are required for Justifications for Other than Full and Open Competition (JOFOC):

Dollar Threshold	JOFOC Concurrence
> $25K	SES/Flag Officer - Line Office Assistant Administrator (AA), DAA or SO Director
> $100K	Legal Counsel – OGC/CLD
> $250K	NOAA Contract Review Board
> $500K	Level above the Contracting Officer
> $50 million	Department of Commerce Senior Procurement Executive (SPE)

3. Acquisition Plan (AP) – See APG Planning Module Section 1.4

Per the NOAA AGO Handbook, a Milestone Plan must be developed and approved for every acquisition. The Milestone Plan shall be approved as follows:

Value of Contract Action Approving Official

SAT or less Team Leader

SAT through $2.5 million HCO

$2,500,001 and above Director, AGO

A written acquisition plan is required for all acquisitions (except for A/E services, unsolicited proposals, and regulated utility services available from only one (1) source) valued at $5 million or more. The plan must be approved by the COR, the COR’s supervisor, the CS, the CO, the HCO, DOC OGC CLD, the Director AGO and the HCA. For acquisitions over $10 million, the plan must be approved by the DOC SPE.

4. Synopsis – Per the NOAA AGO Handbook, all procurements expected to exceed $10,000 must be synopsized in the Government-wide Point of Entry, FedBizOpps.gov, unless an exception exists. If an exception exists per FAR 5.202, cite the exception and provide an explanation. For more information see APG Solicitation Module.

5. Services

(a) Service Contract Act – The Service Contract Act (SCA) establishes standards for current compensation, safety and health protections for service employees(as defined in FAR 22.1001) performing work for Contractors or subcontractors under Government contracts. The SCA applies to every contract with the principle purpose of providing services via service employees working in the United States. When the SCA is applicable, Contracting Officers are required to submit a “Notice of Intention to Make a Service Contract and Response to Notice” electronically. For more information, see FAR 22.10.

(b) Personal Services – DOC/NOAA does not have specific statutory authority to award personal service contracts as defined definitions at FAR 2.101 and FAR 37.101 and the guidelines in FAR 37.104.

(c) Performance-Based Acquisition – The preferred method for acquiring services is through performance-based acquisition (See FAR 37.6)

6. Direct Acquisition Compliances – For Direct Acquisition of supplies and services at or above the SAT placed against non-DOC contracts, the Contracting Officer must document for the record the following:

(a). The action is in the best interests of DOC in terms of satisfying customer requirements, cost effectiveness, delivery schedule, availability/non-availability of suitable contracts within DOC, contract administration, and any other applicable considerations.

(b). Funding is available and appropriate for the acquisition.

(c). Terms, conditions, and/or requirements unique to DOC or NOAA are incorporated into the action to comply with applicable statutes, regulations, and directives.

(d). Services or supplies being ordered are within the scope of the basic contract.

(e). Procedures for Direct Acquisition of supplies and services have been followed.

7. Pre-award Disclosure Statement – The Contracting Officer is responsible for determining when a proposed contract may require Cost Accounting Standard (CAS) coverage and for including the appropriate notice in the Solicitation and then ensuring that the Offeror has submitted the required Disclosure Statements (see FAR 30.202). Provide date and name of approving official on CAS Disclosure Statement.

Public Law 91-379 was enacted in 1970 to promulgate uniform CAS in negotiated Defense contracts. Prime Contractors are responsible for the administration of CAS as it applies to subcontractors. In April 1992, Public Law 100-679 was enacted to recodify the CAS in 48 CFR Part 99. CAS can now apply to any Federal contract.

Disclosure Statements are required by general CAS statutes that state that all Contractors that are subject to CAS must identify its cost accounting practices to include its criteria for accounting for both direct and indirect costs and its basis for allocating cost. Normally the cognizant Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) approves/disapproves submissions.

8. Written Waiver of Audit Request/Field Pricing Support – Generally audit requests are required at the following thresholds:

(a) Fixed-price proposals exceeding the cost or pricing data threshold ($650,000). (When an exception to cost or pricing data per FAR 15.403-1(b) does not exist.)

(b) Cost-reimbursement proposals exceeding the cost or pricing data threshold ($650,000) from Offerors with significant estimating system deficiencies.

Waivers should not be granted unless a compelling reason exists. Request for audit may be waived, for instance, if the requirement is a follow-on procurement and recent rate information is readily available or if pricing of material is recent and has previously been audited/verified.

9. Adequate Contractor Accounting System – The Contractor must have an adequate accounting system for all contracts that are not firm-fixed price or progress payments on fixed priced procurements. The objective of this review is to determine the adequacy and suitably of a firm’s accounting system and practices for accumulating costs. There are three types of principles and standards applicable to Contractors’ accounting systems. In order of precedence, they are:

(a) CAS promulgated by the CAS Board. Whenever a Contractor is required to comply with CAS, the requirements of those Standards take precedence over all other accounting guidance.

(b) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). All Contractors must comply with applicable FAR requirements. For example, FAR 31.201-6 establishes basic guidelines regarding Contractor accounting for unallowable costs.

(c) Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Accounting treatment not specifically covered by CAS or FAR requirements must be treated in accordance with GAAP and the associated Financial Accounting Standards (FAS).

10. Approved Contractor Purchasing System – Approved by the cognizant ACO in a formal review called a Contractor Purchasing System Review (CPSR). The cognizant ACO conducts a complete evaluation of the Contractor’s purchasing of material and services, and subcontracting and subcontract management from development of the requirement through completion of subcontracting performance. The BCM should cite the name of approver and date of approval. Contractors with sales exceeding $25 million usually trigger the ACO to review the CPSR. The review and subsequent certification will provide some assurance that the Contractor is following generally accepted purchasing rules (e.g., has established policies concerning small businesses, seeks competition in subcontracting, is compliant with CAS, reveals appropriate usage of various contract types). Having an approved purchasing system does not preclude the Contracting Officer from performing due diligence on all proposed material purchases.

Consent to Subcontracts. The Contracting Officer may still require specific consent even in the presence of an approved system if the determination is made that the item/product being acquired is in need of further review. For example, the Contracting Officer has determined that an individual consent action is required to protect the Government adequately because of the subcontract type, complexity, value or because the subcontract needs specific surveillance. These can be subcontracts for critical systems, subsystems, components, or services.

If the Contractor does not have an approved purchasing system, consent to subcontract is required for cost-reimbursement, time and material, labor-hour, or letter contracts, and also for unpriced actions (including unpriced modifications and unpriced delivery orders) under fixed-price contracts that exceed the SAT. FAR 44.201-1 provides further consent requirements.

FAR 52.244-5 - Competition in Subcontracting and FAR 52.244-6, Subcontracting for Commercial Items, speak to the requirement to select subcontractors and suppliers on a competitive basis to the maximum extent practicable.

FAR 44 prescribed policies and procedures for the consent and advance notification requirements are not applicable to prime contracts for commercial items acquired pursuant to FAR 12.

Advance notification shall include the following, as provided in FAR 52.244-2(b)(2):

(a) A description of the supplies or services to be subcontracted.

(b) Identification of the type of subcontract to be used.

(c) Identification of the proposed subcontractor and an explanation of why and how the proposed subcontractor was selected, including the competition obtained.

(d) The proposed subcontract price and the Contractor’s cost or price analysis.

(e) The subcontractor’s current, complete, and accurate cost or pricing data and Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data, if required by other contract provisions.

(f) The subcontractor’s Disclosure Statement or Certificate relating to CAS when such data are required by other provisions of the contract.

(g) A BCM from the prime Contractor reflecting the following:

(1) The principal elements of the subcontract price negotiations.

(2) The most significant considerations controlling establishment of initial or revised prices.

(3) The reason cost or pricing data were or were not required.

(4) The extent, if any, to which the Contractor did not rely on the subcontractor’s cost or pricing data in determining the price objective and in negotiating the final price.

(5) The extent to which it was recognized in the negotiation that the subcontractor’s cost or pricing data were not accurate, complete or current; the action taken by the Contractor and the subcontractor; and the effect of any such defective data on the total price negotiated.

(6) The reasons for any significant difference between the Contractor’s price objective and the price negotiated.

(7) A complete explanation of the incentive fee or profit plan when incentives are used. The explanation shall identify each critical performance elements, management decisions used to quantify each incentive element, reasons for the incentives, and a summary of all trade-off possibilities considered.

Written consent by the Contracting Officer is required in the absence of an approved system and for all specific subcontracts identified before placing any subcontracts.

While ratification after the fact is an option, the Contracting Officer is not required to do so. This decision has court precedence affirming that that the Contractor is not entitled to be reimbursed for amounts paid on a subcontract when the Contractor fails to comply with the subcontract approval clauses.

11. Cost or Pricing Data

(a) Pricing Proposal Coversheet (previously SF 1411 required) – A pricing proposal coversheet for prime Contractors and/or major subcontractors is required per FAR 15.408 Table 15-2(c) and SF 1411, though not mandatory, is often used for this purpose. SF 1411 was formerly used to certify the accuracy of cost reimbursable proposals that exceeded the dollar threshold to certify that the cost or pricing data are current, accurate, and complete. Contractors are now required to certify cost and pricing data at the completion of negotiations (sole source procurements, add-ons, change orders, etc.) that exceed the current guidelines of $650,000.

(b) Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data – All facts that, as of the date of price agreement, or, if applicable, an earlier date agreed upon between the parties that is as close as practicable to the date of agreement on price, prudent buyers and sellers would reasonably expect to affect price negotiations significantly (see FAR 2.101). Cost or pricing data are data requiring certification in accordance with FAR 15.406-2. Even with competitive procurements, the Contracting Officer retains the authority to request cost or pricing data if it is determined that additional data are required to determine price reasonableness.

(c) Assist Audits – Audits can be obtained from DCAA, other cognizant audit agency, or approved support contractor. Lower dollar efforts may require only an informal telephone rate check of labor categories. Other options include field pricing support from the local and cognizant ACO office. In some cases, the ACO office can also provide both cost analysis and technical analysis of the proposed cost and provide a recommendation. Turnaround period is usually 30-60 days. See APG 3.4.1.)

12. Pre-Contract Costs – Authorized to meet schedule. Pre-contract costs may be authorized for costs incurred prior to the effective date of the contract in anticipation of contract award. Requires advance approval by the Director, NOAA AGO.

In accordance with FAR 31.109, a written, bilateral negotiated advance agreement is required before costs are incurred. Approved pre-contract costs must be incorporated into applicable current and future contracts; the advance agreement shall contain a statement of its applicability and duration.

Costs of performance of a contractual requirement are not pre-contract costs. If a Solicitation is cancelled prior to award, the Offeror(s) have no entitlement to reimbursement for performance of work contemplated under the Solicitation.

13. Approved Make-or-Buy Plan – In accordance with FAR 15.407-2, Prime Contractors are responsible for managing contract performance, including planning, placing, and administering subcontracts as necessary to ensure the lowest overall cost and technical risk to the Government. When make-or-buy programs are required, the Government may reserve the right to review and agree on the Contractor’s make-or-buy program when necessary to ensure negotiation of reasonable contract prices, satisfactory performance, or implementation of socioeconomic policies. This does not eliminate the need for consent to subcontracts or purchasing system review and approval as addressed under Number 9 above.

Make-or-Buy Plans are normally required for negotiated procurements in excess of $11.5 million except when the procurement is for research or development and (if prototypes or hardware are involved) no significant follow-on production is anticipated. The Contracting Officer has the discretion to mandate plans below $11.5 million if warranted and the reasonableness is documented accordingly.

14. EEO Compliance – Detailed and documented under APG 3.7 Post-Negotiation Case Compliances. In accordance with FAR 22.805 and FAR 22.810, EEO pre-award clearances for contracts and first tiered subcontracts of $10 million or more (excluding construction) are required.

15. Identify any other applicable compliance(s) – For example, Bundling and Consolidation (see FAR 7.107 and Options (see FAR 17.2).

3.8.7.2 Key Documents/Attachments Top of Page

List all documents (including reference numbers and dates) that were utilized to establish the Government’s Pre-negotiation Objective. Number and type of documents will vary depending upon the acquisition. Documents should be listed in the order in which they appear in the body of the BCM and indicate which are attached to the BCM accordingly. Examples of types of documents that may be included are as follows:

Synopsis and Solicitation

	Issuance Date	Closing Date	Purpose of Amendment
Synopsis
Solicitation Number
Amendment 0001
Amendment 0002
Amendment 0003

Offers

Offeror Name	Date of Offer

Source Selection Plan (Attach)

Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Report (Attach)

Past Performance Evaluation Team (PPET) Report (Attach)

Cost/Price Analysis Team (C/PAT) Report (Attach)

DCAA Report(s) (Attach)

DCMA Field Pricing Report (Attach)

Pre-award Survey (Attach)

Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE)

Weighted Guidelines DD 1547 (Attach)

Facilities Capital Cost of Money (FCCOM), DD 1861 (Attach)

Pertinent correspondence or MFRs (Attach)

Other

3.8.7.3 Introduction Top of Page

The Pre-negotiation BCM shall document compliance with law, regulations, and policy and shall become the record showing exercise of good business judgment. It shall be a stand-alone, comprehensive document that shows the Contractor's methodology and how the proposal position was developed, how the technical/past performance and audit reviews developed their recommendations, and the basis for the Contracting Officer’s independent Pre-negotiation Objective(s) considering the technical, past performance, and audit analyses and recommendations.

If price analysis is used to develop the Pre-negotiation Objective, substitute “price analysis” for “cost analysis” in the narrative, as appropriate.

1. Procurement Background

a. Describe what is being acquired, Period of Performance (POP), and the IGCE.

b. Provide a brief history of how supplies/services were previously provided and whether or not there was a previous contract. For follow-on contracts, discuss dollar value, any performance issues, and whether there are significant changes in acquisition strategy from the previous contract.

c. Summarize market research performed and identify any commercial terms and conditions that would affect the procurement.

d. Discuss any other relevant milestone events.

e. Explain any conflicts of interest discovered and describe the course taken to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate the conflict.

2. Negotiation Environment (e.g., definitization of Letter Contract, new work (added scope) modification, sole source acquisition)

a. Address external conditions that may affect the requirement and acquisition (e.g., urgent requirement to support NOAA mission).

b. Describe how consolidation and/or bundling were addressed, if applicable.

c. Explain set-aside decision, if applicable.

d. Discuss to what extent competition was solicited and the number of offers received.

e. Describe applicability of performance based acquisition policy (see DOC PM 2008-01)

3. Funding

a. Describe funding availability, appropriation type, and amount.

b. Discuss any peculiarities associated with funding constraints.

4. Type of Contract

In a sole-source environment, the Contracting Officer may negotiate the contract type coupled with cost and fee (or price) to provide the Contractor with the greatest possible incentive for performance and minimize risk to the Government. FAR 16.104 provides a list of factors, along with guidance on the application of each factor, that the Contracting Officer should consider when selecting a contract type. Financial risk on the Contractor should be commensurate with the ability of the parties to define and price the work with some degree of accuracy.

a. Rationale for selection of contract type.

i. Discuss considerations made in determining the type of contract; explain the rationale for use of proposed contract type and un-suitability of other contract types.

ii. Discuss the technical, schedule, and cost risks involved.

b. Options, if used.

i. Per FAR 17.205(a), justify the quantities or term of the options.

ii. Per FAR 17.202(a), address notification period for exercising the options.

iii. Per FAR 17.203(g), discuss any limitation on option prices, if any.

c. Other Considerations

i. For change orders with an NTE price, address compliance with the limitations set forth in FAR 43.201 and provide support for the NTE price.

d. Award Fee Provisions. Clearly identify the program, requirements, rationale for use of award fee and a discussion on the unsuitability of more advanced contract types. The BCM should include an award fee plan that provides, as a minimum, the following information:

i. Title of Fee Determining Official and functional make-up of the award fee board.

ii. Government’s total estimate, projected base fee percentage and total award fee pool available. This should address program funding to ensure funds are available to cover the total estimated cost, base fee, and total award fee pool.

iii. Contract period of performance, number of award fee periods projected, the length of each period, estimated costs to be incurred during each period, and the projected award fee available during each period.

iv. Rationale for selection of Contractor performance evaluation categories and criteria. Note: All Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contracts or contracts incorporating award fee provisions must include a category on cost and criterion for cost control.

v. Ratings planned under performance evaluation report criteria. To include range of scores that would place a Contractor in each rating category and a definition for each performance evaluation criteria rating.

vi. Identify the planned weighting factors for performance evaluation categories and criteria in each award fee period. Explain the rationale for planned weighting factors consistent with program objectives during each period

vii. Attach a copy of planned award fee provisions to be included in the contract.

e. Incentive or Re-determinable Contracts – discuss all of the pricing provisions.

5. Source Selection

a. Discuss the evaluation criteria and relative weights (summarizing the factors and subfactors set forth in Solicitation sections L and M).

b. Describe the rating scheme (adjectival ratings and corresponding definitions).

3.8.7.4 Summary of Evaluation of Offers Top of Page

a. Provide a matrix (with all the criteria, as applicable) by Offeror name (with the most highly rated Offeror on top), with a technical rating, past performance rating, and price/cost. Example:

	Technical	Past Performance	Overall	Price
Offeror 1	Outstanding	Neutral	Outstanding	$385,000
Offeror 2	Outstanding	Satisfactory	Very Good	$450,000
Offeror 3	Satisfactory	Satisfactory	Satisfactory	$290,000
Offeror 4	Marginal	Marginal	Marginal	$500,000
Offeror 5	Unsatisfactory	Marginal	Unsatisfactory	$270,000

3.8.7.5 Technical Evaluation Top of Page

a. Summarize the results of the evaluation of each offer against the stated evaluation criteria.

b. If the offers were evaluated on a best value basis, state the adjectival rating for each factor and subfactor and include a brief narrative that justifies the rating given.

c. Discuss strengths and weaknesses for each offer, in accordance with the SSP.

3.8.7.6 Past Performance Evaluation Top of Page

a. Describe how the evaluation was conducted (e.g., PPIRS, written surveys, by telephone, Contracting Officer knowledge of the company, etc.).

b. Information gathered (e.g., the Offeror submitted three references, three questionnaires were sent, two responses were received). (For information regarding Offerors with no recent relevant past performance information, see APG 3.2.5.)

c. Detail PPIRS results.

d. Describe the overall results for each Offeror.

3.8.7.7 Price Analysis Top of Page

May be used for evaluating Fixed-Price Offers and Fixed-Price Commercial Item procurements.)

1. Identify the Price Analysis technique(s) used to determine fair and reasonable pricing for each Offeror. Show that the application of each technique satisfies FAR requirements for that technique.

2. If competitive, determine if the competition meets the requirements of Adequate Price Competition in FAR 15.403-1. Include an abstract of all offers received. Example:

Offerors	Base Year	Option Year 1	Option Year 2	Option Year 3	Option Year 4	Total
IGCE
Offeror 1
Offeror 2
Offeror 3
Offeror 4
Offeror 5

3. Identify any other relevant facts that might affect price, such as performance in a Government facility, travel costs, or proposed subcontractor costs.

3.8.7.8 Cost Analysis Top of Page

(For use in analyzing cost and pricing data or for analyzing data that are other than cost or pricing data.)

1. Show in columnar format a summary of all offers received:

	IGCE	Offeror 1	Offeror 2	Offeror 3	Offeror 4	Offeror 5
Cost
Profit/Fee
Total Cost

2. Provide a top-level comparison of each Offeror’s cost proposal and the Government’s cost objective. Present a summary comparison of the following data in columnar format:

· Offeror proposed cost

· Audit recommendation

· Technical recommendation

· Pre-negotiation Objective

In some cases, columns can be combined if there are no distinguishing differences among the data. For instance, if the Contracting Officer’s Pre-negotiation Objective reflects the auditor’s recommendation, then the two do not need to have separate columns as long as the narrative reflects that the Contracting Officer’s Pre-negotiation Objective is inclusive of the auditor’s recommended rates. Additionally, columns may be added if other sources of input are provided, such as input from the DCMA Team.

Sample Pre-negotiation Cost Analysis Summary

(to be used for each Offeror)

ITEM	Offeror 1	Audit Recommendation	Technical Recommendation	Pre-negotiation Objective	Ref
DIRECT LABOR					(a)
DIRECT LABOR O/H					(b)
MATERIAL					(c)
MATERIAL O/H					(b)
SUBCONTRACTS					(d)
OTHER DIRECT COST					(e)
SUBTOTAL
G&A					(b)
SUBTOTAL
FCCM					(b)
PROFIT/FEE					(f)
TOTAL PROPOSAL
TOTAL

The Contracting Officer should attach to the BCM spreadsheets showing the granularity behind the summary including Contractor Proposed Data and Government’s Pre-negotiation Objective data. This method of summary and attachments precludes the reviewer from having to flip among several pages of data unless they need to reference the detail. For instance, if multiple subcontractors were proposed, the spreadsheet would reveal the granularity behind each one while the summary would show the sum of all subcontractor proposed costs.

Developing an Objective. A huge responsibility lies with the Contracting Officer to assemble, analyze, process all the data, and make a recommendation accordingly. DCAA may provide rate information and the COR may make a recommendation from a technical perspective, but neither entity has all the other data available to the Contracting Officer. The narrative should address each recommendation and state the rationale behind it.

When definitizing a Letter Contract or change order/Undefinitized Contracting Action (UCA), the Contractor should include the incurred costs (actuals) along with the overall cost/price proposal. The Contracting Officer should ensure these costs are delineated and describe the supplies/services purchased for the costs incurred to date.

Note: Negotiations based on actuals are not a preferred position. The Contractor has no incentive to control costs, as negotiations have yet to occur. Further, profit objectives in large part are based on risk that the Contractor incurs. If negotiations are based on actual costs incurred, one would argue that little risk was experienced by the Contractor. As a result, the Contracting Officer would be forced to reduce profit accordingly to accommodate the diminution of risk employed. To avoid such circumstances, all Letter Contracts and UCAs should set forth a definitization schedule that should be adhered to by the parties. See FAR 52.216-25.

Subsections (a) through (f) below explain the factors under major cost elements that should be discussed in detail, where applicable, to show how the Pre-negotiation Objective was developed.

(a) Labor

	Offeror Proposed	Government’s Pre-negotiation Objective
Direct Labor	$	$

The labor mix should be thoroughly supported by the Offeror’s narrative Basis of Estimate (BOE). For example, if the proposed effort were to perform brain surgery, one would expect to see a mix of labor containing brain surgeon, nurses, anesthesiologists, and orderlies. A labor mix containing mostly brain surgeons (presumably the highest priced category) would dictate the need to take exception to such an offer. Even if the technical evaluation board does not take exception to a proposed labor mix, the Contracting Officer must still evaluate the labor mix for appropriateness. Supporting information provided by the Offeror should include individual rates, composite rates, and escalation factor used.

Other common areas of interest would be the proposed mix of management to technical hours. For instance, when very senior individuals are proposed and the work is highly technical, one would not expect to see a large percentage of management hours also proposed. Dependent upon the scope of work, average management oversight may be around 5% of total technical hours. If a large number of subcontractors are proposed, the ratio may be as high as 10%.

On-Site vs. Off-Site. As detailed on the Sample Proposal or Evaluation Format, care should be taken to review the number of hours proposed on-site and off-site. As expected, the overhead applied to non-company site personnel is much lower than hours worked at the Contractor’s facility. This is a direct result of the fact that employees working at a non-Contractor site are not incurring the cost of facilities (e.g., desk space). Labor overhead can significantly affect the bottom line. Note that some very small companies may only have one labor overhead rate regardless of where the work is performed. There is nothing inherently wrong with this approach as long as how costs are pooled and accounted for remains consistent. When applicable, this is prescribed in the Contractor’s disclosure statement as addressed above under compliances and as set forth below for clarification purposes.

Contractor’s Disclosed Practices. Contractors have great flexibility in establishing accounting systems; however, costs must be allocated consistently and deviations should not occur. For instance, if it is the Contractor’s disclosed practice, as approved by the cognizant ACO and reported in the compliance section of the Business Case Section above that costs are proposed as a composite rate, then the Contractor cannot unilaterally decide that it is now in their best interest to propose an individual outside of the labor pool. Example: A Contractor has three technicians making $60, $70, and $80, respectively. The average composite labor rate for that pool would be $70 (($60+$70+$80)/3 = $70). The rate of $70 would be consistently proposed for all work requiring technicians. It would be unallowable for the Contractor to propose later on a separate proposal an $80 per hour rate even if the higher paid individual was 100% dedicated to the tasking. If the employee is part of the pool, he cannot be taken out of the pool and charged at a separate rate. Such action is considered “cherry picking,” a colloquial term used in business policies to mean picking out only profitable circumstances from a large base. This would not be in accordance with the Contractor’s disclosed practices and thus unallowable.

Manufacturing Efforts or Follow-On Work. In the event of manufacturing efforts or follow-on work, historical actual hours should be obtained. Learning curves should be calculated to show the slope of regression. The learning curve can be calculated on either the unit itself or hours. Recurring and non-recurring hours should be segregated and discussed separately. As with all manufacturing efforts, anticipate that there will be large points of discussions between the parties regarding the appropriate learning curve to utilize. Historical details should serve as key reference points and minimize the discussion. Ensure that added complexity factors are thoroughly understood prior to applying. Look for ways in which to minimize start-up costs. For instance, by planning appropriately and maintaining a steady flow of production, the Government can realize cost savings by minimizing ramp-up costs associated with start and stop expenses in the production cycle.

Escalation. Labor rates should be consistent, be provided for all years proposed, and delineate the escalation factor used. The escalation factor should not exceed that of a standard index. Care should be taken to ensure that the hours proposed are properly spread across affected years. For instance, is the effort front-loaded or does the bulk of the work occur at the tail end of the effort’s period of performance? Since the rate most often will go up during the later stages of performance owing to inflation, care should be taken to ensure that man-loading of hours are representative to the actual work to be performed. This is a point that can and should be negotiated.

Note: One source of information to assist the Contracting Officer in evaluating escalation is the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Employment Cost Index at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.toc.htm.

Rates. Unlike indirect rates, which are discussed below, a review of actual direct labor rates is rarely an indicator of an Offeror’s ability to project direct labor rates. Often, Contractors bid composite labor rates. Labor category pools are constantly in a state of flux owing to individuals of varying salary ranges entering and leaving the specific labor pool due to promotions, reassignments, resignations, or growth of the pool. Accordingly, a review of historical rates rarely provides substantive data. This is not the case, however, for labor rates associated with key individuals where a Contractor’s proposed rates are not based on composite salary ranges.

Provide a summary of the Contractor’s proposed rates per year and the BOE. If the negotiated Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) exists, as detailed below, and is utilized, identify the agreement’s coverage period along with the specific data being utilized. If no FPRA exists, discuss field pricing (DCAA) recommended rates by year and any variances from the Contractor’s proposed rates.

(b) Indirect

	Offeror Proposed		Government’s Pre-negotiation Objective
Labor O/H	$	%	$	%
Material O/H	$	%	$	%
G&A	$	%	$	%
FCCOM	$		$

Indirects may be addressed as separate paragraphs and/or consolidated as shown above. Whether each indirect cost element is a separate paragraph or not, the information must still be detailed.

Provide a summary of the Contractor’s proposed rates per year and the BOE. If a negotiated FPRA exists, as detailed below, and is used to establish the Government’s Pre-negotiation Objective, identify the agreement’s coverage period along with the specific data being utilized. If no FPRA exists, discuss field pricing (DCAA) recommended rates by year and any variances from the Contractor’s proposed rates. It is with rare exception that the Contracting Officer would use a rate that differed from that of the DCAA recommended rate. Discrepancies are usually a direct result of disagreement on the part of the Contractor and DCAA. For instance, the Contractor may have included a cost element in the overhead pool that the DCAA auditor has determined unallowable. Erring on the side of caution and negotiating in accordance with the DCAA recommendation is the preferable method unless there is overwhelming evidence to support a deviation. In such case, it would be in the Contracting Officer’s best interest to have the Offeror present its BOE to DCAA and have the two parties come to a resolution prior to the Contracting Officer using rates contrary to the established and recommended rates.

Material Overhead (sometimes referred to as Material Handling Charges).While it is acceptable for a Contractor to apply a material handling charge if their disclosed practices so state, the Contractor should not be adding further markup or profit to material prior to estimating the proposed material costs.

FPRA. Occasionally large Contractors will have a negotiated Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA). The cognizant ACO will negotiate direct and indirect rates for Contractors that do a large amount of business with the Government. This streamlines the process for each Contracting Officer and eliminates the need to negotiate rates for every single transaction.

While it is customary to forego the in-depth analysis of rates (direct and indirect) in the presence of an FPRA, in some instances a review is warranted. For example, if contracting for a very large effort, the new effort may skew the rates that have previously been negotiated. In those instances, a further review and/or adjustment may be defensible. Even if the instant action will not impact the rates, the Contracting Officer may want to request from the cognizant ACO the BCM associated with the rate negotiation so that the primary Contracting Officer can understand how the rates were derived.

Rates. The interesting thing about direct and indirect rates is that they are not “facts,” but rather just an estimate of what the Contractor expects to occur during the out-years. A good indicator of the Contractor’s ability to project rates is their history of projections when compared with actuals experienced. If rates vary by more than a few percentage points, the Contracting Officer should provide an explanation.

The following chart is an example of how a Contractor may lay out the historical data. The example below clearly delineates that the Offeror’s ability to project labor overhead is questionable. In the absence of a plausible explanation, the Contracting Officer may wish to weight the projections accordingly.

		Proposed	Actuals	Variance
2003	Labor	150%	145%	5%
	O/H	25%	28%	3%
	G&A	0.00045	0.00046	0.00001
2004	Labor
	O/H
	G&A
2005	Labor
	O/H
	G&A

Figures provided for illustration purposes only

Examples of plausible explanations include the following:

· The company restructured or purchased another company and initial projections did not include a realignment or acquisition.

· A key piece of business in which the Offeror was the incumbent was factored into the projections and the work was lost to another competitor.

Keep in mind that DCAA recommended rates speak to just a snapshot in time. It is incumbent upon the negotiator to look at all the data, including historical rates. An Offeror’s inability to accurately project indirect rates, as demonstrated by historical data, may be a valid reason for the negotiator to take exception to proposed rates in the out-years, regardless of whether DCAA concurs with the proposed rates or not. Again, the Contracting Officer has the responsibility to gather input from all sources and make a judgment call based on all data presented.

Rates are a prominent part of the proposed cost and accordingly, should be documented thoroughly in the BCM. Very large dollar procurements provide a bigger base to which fee is applied, resulting in a larger fee pool. When rates are overstated, so too is the fee entitlement. On incentive type contracts, this can allow a Contractor potentially to receive incentive fee that has not been legitimately earned. Similarly, for fixed priced efforts, overstating the labor rates will allow the Contractor a larger cushion and may result in unjustified profit.

FCCOM. FAR 31.205-10 addresses Facilities Capital Cost of Money (FCCOM) as an imputed cost that represents the cost of the Contractor employing capital when investing in facilities or assets that benefit the Government. Prior to 1976, the Government did not recognize FCCOM. However, along with the establishment of Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) 414, FCCOM became a valid element of cost. CAS 414 sought to motivate Contractors to invest in facilities, which would result in increased productivity and cost reductions through modernization of production facilities. This, in turn, generated efficiency in the performance of Government contracts. Needless to say, cost of money factors are often quite high in manufacturing type efforts. FAR 31.205-52 limits the allowability of FCCOM and sets forth the provisions for when it can be used.

If the prospective Contractor fails to identify or propose FCCOM in a proposal for a contract that will be subject to the cost principles for contracts with commercial organizations (see FAR 31.2), FCCOM will not be an allowable cost in any resulting contract (see FAR 15.408(i)).

CAS 414 further provides standardized methodology that can be used to determine the proper amount of compensation to be paid to a Contractor based on the level of investment in productive facilities. The calculation is derived using DD Form 1861, Contract Facilities Capital Cost of Money.

To complete the DD Form 1861, which is also used to determine a fair and reasonable profit objective in the presence of FCCOM, the Contracting Officer should list overhead pools and direct-charging service centers in the same structure as they appear on the Contractor’s proposal. The appropriate contract overhead allocation base data is extracted by year from the evaluated cost breakdown or pre-negotiation cost objective. Each allocation base is multiplied by its corresponding cost of money factor to compute the FCCOM for each year. The sum of these products represents the estimated contract FCCOM. Note that FCCOM is not included in the cost base when establishing the pre-negotiation fee objective. This will be discussed in further detail below under profit/fee objective. DCAA is the source of approved/recommended FCCOM factors. See also the DD 1547 / DD 1861 Calculation Tool.

	Offeror Proposed	Government’s Pre-negotiation Objective
Material	$	$

As detailed in Instructions to the Offeror, the Contractor should provide rationale associated with all material proposed. The list of material should detail how the estimates were derived (e.g., vendor estimates, historical prices, or a prime Contractor conducted competition).

Most large businesses will have undergone a Contractor Purchasing System Review (CPSR), and should provide the date on which their system was approved. This information is detailed in the compliance section of the BCM. Regardless of whether or not the Contractor has an approved purchasing system, material shall be proposed and purchased in the same manner that would be applied by a prudent business person. For example, history (notably recent history), is typically a good indicator of whether proposed material costs are reasonable for the purposes of negotiation. Given the downward pricing associated with most computer parts and equipment, however, historical pricing is not always a reasonable method by which to estimate such materials. A recently obtained written estimate would present more accurate computer equipment pricing. Never assume that all material costs increase over time.

In a sole source environment, the Contracting Officer should converse with the Contractor to ascertain if corporate discounts were passed on to the Government and/or if efforts were made to combine purchases to obtain quantity discounts.

For large dollar purchases, the Contractor should be conducting a competition among Vendors to ensure the best possible pricing to the Government. If the Contractor has adjusted the material cost for inflation purposes, it should be detailed in the Contractor’s proposal and be subject to negotiations.

Scrap Factors. With large manufacturing projects that rely heavily on raw material, scrap factors may be proposed and should be subject to negotiations. The Contractor should be able to provide supporting data that speak to actual scrap rates. Any scrap factors should also be adjusted for “learning” similar to learning curves associated with manufacturing labor. In essence, one would except that the availability of scraps would decrease over time as workers become more efficient.

Whether or not to apply profit to material costs will be discussed in further detail under profit/fee objective below.

(d) Subcontracts

	Offeror Proposed	Government’s Pre-negotiation Objective
Subcontracts	$	$

In this era of Defense downsizing, teaming arrangements often occur and result in a large portion of the total dollar amount being represented in the category of subcontracts. To maximize one’s chances in a competitive environment, assembling or being part of a “winning” team can be a crucial first step.

While the Contracting Officer has the ultimate fiduciary responsibility of ensuring reasonableness of cost proposed, the prime Contractor has the principle responsibility for ensuring that the proposed subcontractor costs are fair and reasonable prior to including such costs as part of the prime proposal.

The proposal should indicate how a “fair and reasonable cost” determination was made (this analysis must be done regardless of any rate data supplied to the “prime”). Often Contractors will state that they are not privy to the subcontractors’ rate data and thus are unable to negotiate and will attempt to shift that responsibility to the Government. Note that there is no privity of contract between the Government and proposed subcontractors.

The Government cannot enter into negotiations with subcontractors on behalf of the prime Contractor. While the Government often will request sealed packages of the subcontractor’s proposal to be provided with the prime Contractor’s proposal, the prime Contractor must still negotiate in good faith with their subcontractors. For instance, the prime Contractor can still negotiate mix of labor and perform cost analysis from a benchmark perspective (i.e., are the subcontractor’s fully burdened rates similar to the prime’s rates or those of others within the industry).

In the event that the Government’s review reveals questionable or unreasonable costs, the Government should request the prime Contractor convene with their subcontractor(s) to address the issues. The Government must be careful to not, at any time, reveal rate or other proprietary information to the prime Contractor. The bottom line is that the Contracting Officer should be reasonably assured that the prime Contractor has reviewed and conducted negotiations with its subcontractors in a similar fashion, as the Government would perform with the prime Contractor/Offeror. Whether or not to apply profit to subcontractor costs will be discussed in further detail under profit/fee objective below.

(e) Other Direct Costs (ODCs)

	Offeror Proposed	Government’s Pre-negotiation Objective
ODCs	$	$

Other Direct Costs (ODCs) are costs not included as part of proposed material or subcontractor costs. In most cases, ODCs will consist of travel costs or consultant costs.

Depending upon the scope of work, travel can amount to a large percentage of the total proposed cost. The Contractor should ensure that proposals state how the travel costs were developed and provide detail for all proposed trips. Contractors should not propose travel costs in a lump sum unless the procurement is structured in such a way that “NTE” (not-to-exceed) costs will be negotiated/definitized at a later date as the travel occurs. NOAA Solicitations are frequently structured by providing an NTE to accommodate situations in which travel cannot be identified with certainty in advance.

Trips may vary as work progresses; however, proposed travel costs may still be negotiated based upon the Government’s best estimate of number of trips, location, and duration. Offerors should use the Federal Travel Regulation for calculating lodging and per diems. Compact car rental rates should be used unless numerous people are sharing the same vehicle, in which case an upgrade to a midsize car may be warranted. The Contractor should identify the reason for each proposed trip and proposed airfare accordingly. For instance, events such as quarterly program reviews should be firmly scheduled far enough in advance to warrant pricing of the airline ticket at the advanced purchase rate. Conversely, travel associated with unplanned repairs would not provide ample notice for advance ticket pricing, and should be proposed at an unrestricted rate. As with material purchases, and given the volatility of air travel costs, in no event should an escalation factor be applied to proposed travel in the out-years.

(f) Profit/Fee

	Offeror Proposed	Government’s Pre-negotiation Objective
Profit/Fee	$	$

Contracting Officers must use a structured approach for developing a pre-negotiation profit or fee objective on any negotiated contract action when cost or pricing data are obtained (see FAR 15.403-1 for prohibitions on obtaining cost and pricing data), except in the case of cost-plus-award-fee contracts or Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs).

Profit percentage is a calculation of which a large component is the reward of a higher percentage of profit based upon the risk that the Contractor is willing to assume. As fixed price efforts are the most advantageous from the Government’s perspective since they shift the risk to the Contractor, the Contracting Officer must ensure that that profit is legitimately earned and that inflated labor rates are not factored into the equations allowing the potential for the Offeror to earn windfall profits.

The Contracting Officer is responsible for conducting a weighted guidelines method using DD Form 1547, Record of Weighted Guidelines Method Application or addressing the rationale for not using the weighted guidelines method. See the Weighted Guidelines Sample for guidance in determining profit. The Weighted Guidelines method focuses on four profit factors: performance risk, contract type risk, facilities capital employed, and cost efficiency.

Often, Contractors will say they perform above the norm. In that the majority claim the same thing, all performing above the proverbial norm equates to all being average. Very few cases warrant higher than average scoring. Statutory limits for fee on cost reimbursement contracting is 10% for non-R&D and 15% for R&D procurement. Contractors are not required to submit a copy of DD Form 1547 with their proposal.

The weighted guidelines analysis is set up to reward Contractors with a prescribed profit objective and take into consideration all cost elements. Despite the fact that all cost objectives enter into the calculation; some Contracting Officers are reluctant to apply profit to cost elements that do not carry the same risks, such as travel or materials. If this is the case, the Sample Proposal or Evaluation Format should be modified to apply fee to a different base. A modified Weighted Guidelines should be used for non-profit institutions.

3.8.7.9 Incentive/Award Fee Structure Top of Page

Weighted Guidelines analysis is not required for Award Fee/Incentive Fee arrangements; however, the Contracting Officer must conduct and detail in this section their logical analysis for each of the arrangements stated below:

· Share ratio under/over target and rationale.

· Min/max fee structure and rationale.

· Point of Total Assumption (PTA) analysis.

· Ceiling.

· Range of Incentive Effectiveness (RIE) for CPIF.

· Discuss award fee structure, identify who is on performance evaluation board and who is fee determining official, and include clause as attachment.

· Provide incentive share arrangement and/or graph or determination provision.

For information on the structuring of award fee contracts, see NCMA Article: Incentive and Award-Fee Contracting.

Cost-Plus-Incentive-Fee (CPIF) Contracts. Include a contract stated formula, which is used to determine profit earned based on performance results achieved. FAR 16.405-1 defines CPIF as a type of cost reimbursable contract that provides for the initially negotiated fee to be adjusted later by a formula based on the relationship of total allowable costs to total target costs. This contract type specifies a target cost, a target fee, minimum and maximum fees, and a fee adjustment formula. After contract performance, the fee payable to the Contractor is determined in accordance with the formula. The formula provides, within limits, for increases in fee above target fee when total allowable cost are less than target costs, and decreases in fee below target fee when total allowable costs exceed target costs. This increase or decrease is intended to provide an incentive for the Contractor to manage the contract effectively. When total allowable cost is greater than or less than the range of costs within which the fee-adjustment formula operates, the Contractor is paid total allowable costs, plus the minimum or maximum fee.

Basically, cost-incentive formulas are such that the Contractor’s actual fee varies inversely with the amount of costs incurred as long as the actual costs incurred fall within the range of sharing. This is established by the point where the maximum and minimum fee takes effect. Once these points are reached, the contract becomes a CPFF contract at either the maximum or minimum fee depending on the circumstances. The range in which the sharing arrangement is effective is commonly called the RIE.

The following example of a CPIF arrangement is provided for illustration purposes:

Target Cost: $100

Target Fee: $8

Maximum Fee: 15% ($15)

Minimum Fee: 2% ($2)

Sharing Arrangement: 80/20

In this incentive formula, the RIE where sharing occurs is between incurred costs of $65 and $130. If the work is performed at a cost of $65 or less, the Contractor is paid the maximum fee of $15, while the minimum fee of $2 is paid if the total cost of performance is $130 or more.

There is really not any overarching policy regarding establishing objectives when structuring incentive fees. Share ratios typically range from 90/10 to 70/30.

Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) Contracts. Subjective in nature, award fees are determined by members of a pre-selected award fee panel. The evaluation mechanism is disclosed to the Contractor prior to performance.

FAR 16.405-2 defines a CPAF contract as a cost reimbursable contract that provides for a fee consisting of a base amount fixed at inception (can be zero percent with normal ranges between 0 and 5%) of the contract and an award amount that the Contractor may earn in whole or in part during performance and that is sufficient to provide motivation for excellence in such areas as quality, timeliness, technical ingenuity and cost effective management. The amount of the award fee to be paid is determined by the Government’s evaluation of the Contractor’s performance in terms of the criteria stated in the contract. This determination and the methodology for determining award fee are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government.

One of the major advantages of a CPAF contract is that it will improve communication between the parties during the life of the contract. That is, making periodic awards that provide detailed evaluation of performance may result in the Contractor improving performance during the life of the contract. The return on investment for the Contractor under this contract type is usually high.

One of the major disadvantages of this type of contracting vehicle is the enormous administrative burden associated with continual evaluations and the processing of award decisions. Accordingly, CPAF contracts are not usually entered into unless the dollar value of the contract warrants the use of such an administratively burdensome contract type.

FAR 16.405-2(b)(1)(i) states that “The cost-plus-award-fee contract is suitable for use when … the work to be performed is such that it is neither feasible nor effective to devise predetermined objective incentive targets applicable to cost, technical performance or schedule.” Objective criteria will be used whenever possible.

3.8.7.10 Competitive Range Determination and Discussion Topics Top of Page

1. Competitive Range Determination

a. Before conducting discussions, the Government must establish a competitive range and document the decision/rationale. In general, a competitive range should be established only after the Government has evaluated each offer in accordance with all evaluation factors in the Solicitation, including cost/price. That is not to say, however, that the Government must under all circumstances consider the Offeror’s proposed cost/price before it eliminates that offer from the competitive range.

	Technical Rating	Past Performance Rating	Overall Rating	Offeror Proposed	Pre-negotiation Objective	Competitive Range (Y/N)
Offeror 1	Outstanding	Neutral	Outstanding	$385,000	$385,000	Yes
Offeror 2	Outstanding	Satisfactory	Very Good	$450,000	$450,000	Yes
Offeror 3	Satisfactory	Satisfactory	Satisfactory	$290,000	$290,000	Yes
Offeror 4	Marginal	Marginal	Marginal	$500,000	$360,000	No
Offeror 5	Unsatisfactory	Marginal	Unsatisfactory	$270,000	$300,000	No

b. Provide a determination and supporting discussion for each Offeror determined to be within or outside the competitive range. Examples:

· Offeror 4 is excluded from the competitive range because deficiencies and shortcomings noted during the evaluation indicate a lack of understanding of the requirement. The proposed price was unreasonably high in comparison with the other Offerors, its past performance rating was marginal, and its technical proposal was rated marginal. [Continue with a detailed discussion of all deficiencies and significant weaknesses that contributed to the Offeror being eliminated from the competitive range.]

· Offeror 5’s proposal is excluded from the competitive range because its proposed price was unrealistically low, past performance rating marginal, and the technical proposal demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the requirement. [Continue with a detailed discussion of all deficiencies and significant weaknesses that contributed to the Offeror being eliminated from the competitive range.]

2. Discussion Topics

a. At a minimum, provide a listing of price and non-price discussion topics to be addressed with each Offeror included in the competitive range.

b. Identify any deficiencies, significant weaknesses, adverse past performance to which the Offeror has not yet had the opportunity to respond, and concerns with each of the Offerors that will be covered in discussions. These would include considerations that could affect the evaluation rating of an evaluation factor and may apply to cost or price and past performance, as well as technical factors.

c. The Government is not required to discuss the same topics with all of the Offerors in the competitive range. However, discussion topics must relate to evaluation factors in the Solicitation and the Government may not favor one Offeror over another, reveal an Offeror’s solution to another Offeror, reveal an Offeror’s price without the Offeror’s permission, disclose source selection information, or reveal the name of individuals providing past performance information.

3.8.7.11 Special Considerations Top of Page

Address any other information pertinent to developing the Pre-negotiation Objective that is not included in the above sections. Examples include the following:

1. EPA. FAR 16.203-1 defines Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) Contracts with an Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) as contract vehicles that provide for upward and downward revisions of the stated contract price upon the occurrence of specified contingencies. FAR 16.203-2 states that an FFP-EPA contract may be used when (i) there is serious doubt concerning the stability of market or labor conditions that will exist during an extended period of contract performance, and (ii) contingencies that would otherwise be included in the contract price can be identified and covered separately in the contract. Price adjustments based on established prices should normally be restricted to industry-wide contingencies. Price adjustments based on labor and material costs should be limited to contingencies beyond the Contractor’s control.

An FFP-EPA contract shall not be used unless the Contracting Officer determines that it is necessary either to protect the Contractor and the Government against significant fluctuations in labor or material costs or to provide for contract price adjustment in the event of changes in the Contractor’s established prices.

It is critical that the appropriate index be selected and that it is understood what particular areas/commodities are trying to be mitigated.

2. Government Furnished Equipment/Material/Property/Information (GFE/M/P/I). FAR 45 addresses GFP. Normally Contractors are required to furnish all property necessary to perform Government contracts. However, if Contractors possess GFP, Contracting Officers must eliminate competitive advantages that might arise as a result of having that property in their possession. Additionally, the Contractors are required to maintain a strict property control system and be responsible for all items in their possession.

There are many administrative issues and challenges associated with GFP/M /I. Anytime the Government signs on to provide information or material, inherent risks accompany that decision. In some cases such as unique equipment or information, it cannot be avoided; however, where practicable, Contractors should be encouraged to supply all required assets on their own accord.

The Contracting Officer must be mindful that procurements heavily emphasizing GFP could result in the potential for unprincipled behavior on the part of Offerors. Contractors may attempt to “buy in” knowing that they can “get well” on change orders that are sure to follow because of late receipt of GFP or faulty equipment. This is especially likely when the GFE being provided is used equipment. If GFP is unavoidable, the Contracting Officer should look for ways to mitigate associated risks.

3. Unusual contract financing clauses (e.g., for commercial item purchase financing, noncommercial item purchase financing, progress payments based on cost, performance based payments. See FAR 32.) FAR 32.1001 prescribes the Government’s preference for performance-based payments as a method of contract financing for fixed-price non-commercial contracts and orders for supplies and services that do not contain provisions for progress payments.

4. Deviations from FAR, CAR, or other DOC or NOAA regulation or policy.

5. Warranty provisions to include cost benefit analysis. FAR 31.205-39 addresses service and warranty costs as arising from fulfillment of any contractual obligation of a Contractor to provide services such as installation, training, correcting deficiencies in the products, replacing defective parts, and making refunds in the case of inadequate performance.

Service and warranty costs are allowable; however, care should be exercised to avoid duplication of the allowance as an element of both estimated product cost and risk. An example of this might be the purchase of a warranty when the product already comes with a standard one-year warranty. In the event that a product does not come with a standard warranty, care must be exercised to ascertain the likelihood of actual utilization of the purchased warranty. For instance, when does the warranty take effect? Will the unit be delivered to the end user immediately or will it be put on a shelf for fielding at some later date and time when the warranty has already expired?

Another item to note: Most manufacturers of either off-the-shelf equipment or unique one-of-a-kind systems will void a warranty if the user attempts to fix a product him/herself. In fact, the manufacturer often expressly forbids the disassembly of the unit in an attempt to “home” repair because this often results in a more costly repair for the manufacturer.

Often Project Officers push to purchase warranties so as to eliminate the need to allocate resources (identify/provide funding) for the out-years. In this event, the Contracting Officer should attempt to negotiate specifics associated with the warranties. For instance, will loaner equipment be supplied? Who is responsible for shipment costs? How long will repairs be required? Is the Vendor required to supply replacements prior to receipt of the defective equipment? Such nuances can become costly if not specifically addressed as part of the contract.

6. Design to Cost. As defined in FAR 2.101, a concept that establishes cost elements as management goals to achieve the best balance between life-cycle cost, acceptable performance, and schedule. Under this concept, cost is a design constraint during the design and development phases and a management discipline throughout the acquisition and operation of the system or equipment.

7. Lease versus Purchase Analysis. FAR 7.4 provides guidance on both the decisions associated with the initial acquisition and any option/renewals. There are no steadfast rules. Each case must be decided on its own; however, at a minimum, the following should be considered:

· Estimated length of the period of equipment and the extent of use within that period.

· Financial and operating advantages of alternative types and makes of equipment.

· Cumulative rental payment for the estimated period of use.

· Net purchase price.

· Transportation and installation costs.

· Maintenance and other service costs.

· Potential obsolescence and the equipment become of imminent technological improvements.

· Availability of purchase options.

· Potential for use of the equipment by other agencies after its use by the acquiring agency is ended.

· Trade in or salvage value.

· Imputer interest.

· Availability of a servicing capability, especially for highly complex equipment.

See the NOAA Property Management Manual, AGO Personal Property Lease Handbook, Lease Determination Worksheet.

8. Buy American Act exemption, if applicable.

9. Data Rights. Discuss whether data to permit competitive re-procurement are being purchased. Discuss cost, delivery, and whether unlimited rights are required.

10. Special Test Equipment and/or Special Tooling, if applicable.

11. Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI). The Government avoids awarding contracts where the Contractor has actual or potential bias or presents an unfair competitive advantage for future procurements. Contracting Officers are responsible for deciding whether to disqualify an Offeror or add a contract provision to prevent the Offeror from participating in future efforts. FAR 9.5 addresses this aspect in more detail. Also see APG Introduction Module Section 0.3.

3.8.7.12 Recommendations Top of Page

Recommend either to award on initial offers or enter into negotiations.

For award on initial offers, identify the following:

1. Discuss the award recommendation and how it represents the most advantageous offer to the Government, price and other factors considered.

· For LPTA, discuss how the proposed awardee meets or exceeds the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. Address quality of product or service through the non-cost evaluation factors.

· Describe tradeoffs among price or non-price factors, if any.

· Discuss risk assessment.

· For recommendations to accept other than the lowest priced offer, address the perceived benefits of the higher priced offer and how the offer merits the additional cost.

· For recommendations based on cost realism analysis, discuss the adjustments made by the C/PAT. (Proposals requiring the least amount of adjustments are considered the most favorable. An Offeror who either over or underestimates proposed costs are considered the least advantageous and accordingly, the evaluation should factor this in.)

2. Explain why the price proposed has been determined fair and reasonable (e.g., based upon adequate competition and in comparison with the IGCE and/or historical pricing).

3. State that based upon the criteria in the Solicitation, award is recommended to the selected awardee.

4. Responsibility Determination

Complete when awarding on initial offers (i.e., completing a Pre/Post-Negotiation BCM) or when preparing Post-Negotiation BCMs. If requesting authority to enter into negotiations, Responsibility Determination should be addressed in the Post-Negotiation BCM.

a. Include a narrative description to address how the proposed awardee meets the following responsibility criteria in accordance with FAR 9.104, as shown below:

· Has adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them (see FAR 9.104-3(a)).

· Is able to comply with the required or proposed delivery or performance schedule, taking into consideration all existing commercial and governmental business commitments.

· Has a satisfactory performance record (see FAR 9.104-3(b) and FAR 42.15). A prospective Contractor shall not be determined responsible or nonresponsible solely on the basis of a lack of relevant performance history, except as provided in FAR 9.104-2. See the Excluded Parties List System: www.epls.gov.

· Has a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.

· Has the necessary organization, experience, accounting and operational controls, and technical skills, or the ability to obtain them (including, as appropriate, such elements as production control procedures, property control systems, quality assurance measures, and safety programs applicable to materials to be produced or services to be performed by the prospective Contractor and subcontractors). (See FAR 9.104-3(a).)

· Has the necessary production, construction, and technical equipment and facilities, or the ability to obtain them (see FAR 9.104-3(a)); and

· Is otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations.

b. Address small business considerations, as applicable (see FAR 9.104-3(d))

· If a small business concern’s offer that would otherwise be accepted is to be rejected because of a determination of nonresponsibility, the Contracting Officer shall refer the matter to the Small Business Administration, which will decide whether or not to issue a Certificate of Competency (see FAR 19.6).

· A small business that is unable to comply with the limitations on subcontracting at FAR 52.219-14 may be considered nonresponsible.

Authority Requested

For competitive procurements, pre-negotiation authority request should read as follows:

Based upon the information contained herein, it is requested that authority be granted to include Contractors ABC, DEF, and XYZ in the competitive range and enter into discussions with each Offeror.

For sole-source procurements, pre-negotiation authority request should read as follows:

Based upon the information contained herein, it is requested that authority be granted to enter into negotiations with Contractor XYZ. Should the Contracting Officer meet or exceed the negotiation objective, request permission to waive the requirement of an approved Post-Negotiation BCM (to be completed and maintained in the contract file).

Note: If the Pre-negotiation BCM objectives were achieved during negotiations, a Post-Negotiation BCM is still required; however, the Contracting Officer may request, in the Pre-negotiation BCM, a waiver of higher-level approval of the Post-Negotiation BCM. For instance, a Pre-negotiation BCM may include the following on the signature page: “Request authority to waive the requirement for approval above the Contracting Officer of the Post-Negotiation BCM if all objectives are achieved.” Again, this does not waive the requirement to write a Post-Negotiation BCM but rather the requirement to obtain signatures beyond that of the Contracting Officer drafting the BCM. The Post-Negotiation BCM should be included in the contract file.

For competitive or sole-source award on initial offers, authority request should read as follows:

Based upon the information contained herein, it is requested that authority be granted to award to Contractor XYZ at $$$ price.

3.8.8 Post-Negotiation Sections Top of Page

3.8.8.1 Compliances Top of Page

Address Post-Negotiation compliances, as applicable, identifying each as N/A, Yes (addressed), or No (not addressed) and provide explanation.

a. The Contractor has submitted a "Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data" dated _____________(FAR 15.406-2).

b. Notification of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Compliance has been approved (see FAR 22.805 and FAR 22.810) and will be included in the definitive contract file. Yes _____ No____ If No, explain.

EEO. Before a contract of $10 million or more can be awarded, the Contractor and/or subcontractor must be in compliance with EEO requirements (see FAR 52.222-26). The Contracting Officer will request and obtain pre-award compliance clearances from the Office of the Federal Contract Compliance Program (OFCCP). The Contracting Officer is also responsible for reviewing and concurring with requests for EEO Clearance. Often this step is simple: If Contractors or subcontractors are listed in the National Pre-Award Registry (http://www.dol-esa.gov/preaward/), the Contracting Officer need not request pre-award clearance; however, if the specific Contractor is not listed, the Contracting Officer must contact the OFCPP no later than 15 days prior to the proposed award date. Exemptions are allowed – see FAR 22.807 for additional guidance.

c. Subcontracting Plans. No matter which type of Subcontracting Plan is submitted by the Offeror, the Contracting Officer must negotiate, approve, and incorporate the Plan into the contract. The following are the three types of Subcontracting Plans depending upon individual procurements:

i. For commercial items, per FAR 19.704(d), a Commercial Subcontracting Plan (including goals) that covers the Offeror’s fiscal year and that applies to the entire production of commercial items sold by either the entire company or a portion thereof (e.g., division, plant, or product line) is preferred.

ii. An Individual Subcontracting Plan covers the entire contract period (including option periods), applies to a specific contract, and has goals that are based on the Offeror’s planned subcontracting in support of the specific contract except that indirect costs incurred for common or joint purposes may be allocated on a prorated basis to the contract (see FAR 19.704(c)).

iii. A Master Subcontracting Plan (also referred to as Comprehensive) allows Offerors to submit a comprehensive subcontracting plan that has been reviewed and approved by the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) in accordance with FAR 42.302. In addition, the Contracting Officer should require Offerors to submit their intended use of small business participation for the specific effort (goals that are based on the Offeror’s planned subcontracting in support of the specific contract).

Note: Undefinitized Contract Actions (UCAs) shall include at least a preliminary basic subcontracting plan addressing the requirements of FAR 19.704 and shall require the negotiation of the final plan within 90 days after award or before definitization, whichever occurs first (FAR 19.705-5(b)).

3.8.8.2 Key Documents/Attachments Top of Page

List references and exhibits/attachments in the order in which they appear in body of the Post-Negotiation BCM.

1. Revised SSEB Report (Attach)

2. Revised PPET Report (Attach)

3. Revised C/PAT Report (Attach)

4. Revised Weighted Guidelines DD 1547, if applicable (Attach)

5. Revised Facilities Capital Cost of Money (FCCOM), DD 1861, if applicable (Attach)

6. Pertinent Correspondence or MFRs

7. Incentive share arrangements.

8. Updated special clauses.

9. Other, as applicable.

3.8.8.3 Summary Top of Page

1. Background

a. Update events since Pre-negotiation BCM approved.

b. Identify Pre-negotiation BCM number; discuss when it was approved, conditions of the approval, how these conditions were resolved, and where in the body of the Case these conditions are discussed.

2. Revised Offer Information (as applicable)

OFFEROR NAME	DATE OF REVISION

3. Negotiations/Discussions

a. Summarize negotiations/discussion medium and date information for each Offeror within the competitive range.

OFFEROR NAME

NEGOTIATION MEDIUM

(IN-PERSON, PHONE, WRITTEN)

DATE

b. Identify individuals present during negotiations.

OFFEROR NAME

PARTICIPATING FOR

GOVERNMENT

PARTICIPATING FOR OFFEROR

c. Results. In narrative format, address the following areas at a minimum for each Offeror:

· Describe discussion topics. If topics identified in the Pre-negotiation BCM were not addressed, explain why. If discussion topics not identified in the Pre-negotiation BCM were addressed, explain why.

· Discuss any questions or clarification requests received from Offeror.

· Describe Offeror’s response to all questions, discussion topics, and any proposal deficiencies/significant weaknesses identified by the Government during discussions.

· Explain how information exchanged during discussions/negotiations was reflected in the revised offer.

· Address any other pertinent items per FAR 15.406-3 documenting the Negotiation.

d. Provide relevant correspondence, transcripts, or MFRs.

3.8.8.4 Evaluation of Final Proposal Revisions Top of Page

1. Summary of Evaluations

Restate Pre-negotiation evaluation matrix of Offerors in the competitive range. Provide Post-Negotiation evaluation matrix (with all criteria and ratings) by Offeror name (with the most highly rated Offeror on top), with a technical rating, past performance rating, and price/cost. Example:

Pre-negotiation

	Technical Rating	Past Performance Rating	Overall Rating	Price
Offeror 1	Outstanding	Neutral	Outstanding	$385,000
Offeror 2	Outstanding	Satisfactory	Very Good	$450,000
Offeror 3	Satisfactory	Satisfactory	Satisfactory	$290,000

Post-Negotiation

	Technical Rating	Past Performance Rating	Overall Rating	Price
Offeror 3	Outstanding	Satisfactory	Very Good	$290,000
Offeror 1	Outstanding	Neutral	Outstanding	$385,000
Offeror 2	Outstanding	Very Good	Very Good	$450,000

2. Technical Evaluation

a. Summarize the results of the evaluation of each offer against the stated evaluation criteria.

b. If the offers were evaluated on a best value basis, state the adjectival rating for each factor and subfactor and include a brief narrative that justifies the rating given.

c. Discuss strengths and weaknesses for each offer, in accordance with the SSP.

3. Past Performance Evaluation

12. a. Describe the overall results for each Offeror, highlighting any new information obtained since the pre-negotiation evaluation that affects the overall rating. Include discussion of any adverse past performance that was addressed. (See APG 3.2.5.)

4. Price Analysis

(May be used for evaluating Fixed-Price Offers and Commercial Item procurements.)

a. Show in columnar format a summary of final proposal revisions received:

Offerors	Base Year	Option Year 1	Option Year 2	Option Year 3	Option Year 4
Offeror 1
Offeror 2
Offeror 3
Offeror 4
Offeror 5

b. Provide discussion of pricing, identifying differences in Pre-negotiation Objectives and Post-Negotiation Positions.

c. Discuss price analysis performed subsequent to receipt of final proposal revisions.

d. Identify the Price Analysis technique(s) used to determine fair and reasonable pricing for each Offeror.

5. Cost Analysis

(For use in analyzing cost and pricing data or for analyzing data that are other than cost or pricing data.)

a. Show in columnar format a summary of final proposal revisions received.

	Offeror 1	Offeror 2	Offeror 3
Cost
Profit/Fee
Total Cost

b. Provide a summary comparison in columnar format to include the following: Initial Offer, Government Pre-negotiation Objective, Final Proposal Revision, and Government Post-Negotiation Position for each Offeror.

ITEM	Initial Offer	Pre-negotiation Objective	Final Proposal Revision	Post-Negotiation Position	Ref
DIRECT LABOR					(a)
DIRECT LABOR O/H					(b)
MATERIAL					(c)
MATERIAL O/H					(b)
SUBCONTRACTS					(d)
OTHER DIRECT COST					(e)
SUBTOTAL
G&A					(b)
SUBTOTAL
FCCM					(b)
PROFIT/FEE					(f)
TOTAL PROPOSAL
TOTAL

c. For each Offeror, address the following:

· Provide discussion of each cost element for each Offeror, discussing the rationale for differences in Pre-negotiation Objectives and Post-Negotiation Positions.

· Include any supplemental cost data obtained, or a summary thereof, such as written documents or oral presentations of actual cost data (material prices, labor hours, labor rates, overhead rates, etc.).

· Include an evaluation of the supplemental data, its effect upon cost trends, and the degree to which it supports or justifies the prices negotiated with the Contractor.

· Include a discussion on the extent to which the Contracting Officer relied on cost or pricing data submitted and certified by the Contractor. There must be sufficient details included in the Case to avoid difficulties in determining what cost and pricing data were relied on should defective pricing data be subsequently alleged.

· Address rationale for changes in special provisions that affect cost or new special provisions added during negotiations. Attach clauses.

(a) Labor

	Offeror Proposed	Government’s Post-Negotiation Position
Labor	$	$

(b) Indirects

	Offeror Proposed		Government’s Post-Negotiation Position
Labor OH	$	%	$	%
Material O/H	$	%	$	%
G&A	$	%	$	%
FCCOM	$		$

Offeror Proposed

Government’s

Post-Negotiation Position

Material

(d) Subcontracts

Offeror Proposed

Government’s

Post-Negotiation Position

Subcontracts

(e) Other Direct Costs (ODCs)

Offeror Proposed

Government’s

Post-Negotiation Position

ODCs

(f) Profit/Fee

Offeror Proposed

Government’s

Post-Negotiation Position

Profit/Fee

6. Other Information: Other information pertinent to the Case not previously addressed.

3.8.8.5 Award Recommendation Top of Page

1. Discuss the award recommendation and how it represents the most advantageous offer to the Government, price and other factors considered.

· For LPTA, discuss how the proposed awardee meets or exceeds the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. Address quality of product or service through the non-cost evaluation factors.

· Describe tradeoffs among price or non-price factors, if any.

· Discuss risk analysis.

· For recommendations to accept other than the lowest priced offer, address the perceived benefits of the higher priced offer and how the offer merits the additional cost.

· For recommendations based on cost realism analysis, discuss adjustments to probable costs made by the C/PAT. (Proposals requiring the least amount of adjustments are considered the most favorable. An Offeror who either over or underestimates proposed costs are considered the least advantageous and accordingly, the evaluation should factor this in.)

2. Explain why the price proposed has been determined fair and reasonable (e.g., based upon adequate competition and in comparison with the IGCE and/or historical pricing).

3. State that based upon the criteria in the Solicitation, award is recommended to the selected awardee.

4. Responsibility

Include a narrative description to address how the proposed awardee meets the following responsibility criteria in accordance with FAR 9.104, as shown below:

Has adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them (see FAR 9.104-3(a)).

· Is able to comply with the required or proposed delivery or performance schedule, taking into consideration all existing commercial and governmental business commitments.

· Has a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.

· Has the necessary production, construction, and technical equipment and facilities, or the ability to obtain them (see FAR 9.104-3(a)); and

· Is otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations.

· Address small business considerations, as applicable (see FAR 9.104-3(d))

· A small business that is unable to comply with the limitations on subcontracting at FAR 52.219-14 may be considered nonresponsible.

Authority Requested

For both competitive and sole-source procurements, post-negotiation authority request should read as follows:

Based upon the information contained herein and in the attached and referenced Pre-negotiation BCM, it is requested that authority be granted to award to Contractor XYZ at $$$ price.

Note: If the Pre-negotiation BCM objectives were achieved during negotiations, a Post-Negotiation BCM is still required; however, the Contracting Officer may request, in the Pre-negotiation BCM, a waiver of higher-level approval of the Post-Negotiation BCM. For instance, a Pre-negotiation BCM may include the following on the signature page: “Request authority to waive the requirement for approval above the Contracting Officer of the Post-Negotiation BCM if all objectives are achieved.” Again, this does not waive the requirement to write a Post-Negotiation BCM, but rather the requirement to obtain signatures beyond that of the Contracting Officer drafting the BCM. The Post-Negotiation BCM should be included in the contract file.

3.8.9 BCM Templates Top of Page

Simplified Acquisition Documentation Record (for requirements between $2,500 to the SAT)

SAP Pre/Post-Negotiation BCM Template (for requirements pursuant to FAR Subpart 13.5)

SAP Post-Negotiation BCM Template (for requirements pursuant to FAR Subpart 13.5)

FAR Part 15 BCM Template (for requirements pursuant to FAR Part 15)


3.9 Summary of Evaluation Module References

Section	Loc	Reference Description	Type	Source
3.0	1	FAR 9	Regulation	FAR
3.0	2	Simplified Acquisition Documentation Record	Template	NOAA
3.0	3	FAR 13.5	Regulation	FAR
3.0	4	SAP Pre/Post-Negotiation BCM Template	Template	NOAA
3.0	5	SAP Post-Negotiation BCM Template	Template	NOAA
3.1	1	FAR 9	Regulation	FAR
3.1.1	1	FAR 13.106-3	Regulation	FAR
3.1.1	2	Simplified Acquisition Documentation Record	Template	NOAA
3.1.1	3	FAR 13.5	Regulation	FAR
3.1.1	4	SAP Pre/Post-Negotiation BCM Template	Template	NOAA
3.1.1	5	SAP Post-Negotiation BCM Template	Template	NOAA
3.1.2.3	1	FAR 15.404-1	Regulation	FAR
3.1.2.3	2	DAU Price Analysis Techniques Training Material	Training	NOAA
3.1.3	1	FAR 13	Regulation	FAR
3.1.3	2	FAR 14	Regulation	FAR
3.1.3	3	FAR 15	Regulation	FAR
3.1.3	4	FAR 13.500(e))	Regulation	FAR
3.1.3	5	FAR 12	Regulation	FAR
3.1.3.1	1	FAR 13.106	Regulation	FAR
3.1.3.2	1	FAR 13.5	Regulation	FAR
3.1.3.2	2	FAR 15	Regulation	FAR
3.1.3.2	3	FAR 13.106.	Regulation	FAR
3.1.3.2	4	FAR 2.101	Regulation	FAR
3.1.3.2	5	FAR 15.101-2	Regulation	FAR
3.1.3.2	6	FAR 15.101-1	Regulation	FAR
3.1.3.2	7	FAR 15.406	Regulation	FAR
3.1.3.2	8	Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)	Website	PPIRS
3.1.3.2	9	FAR 15	Regulation	FAR
3.1.3.3	1	FAR 13.106-2	Regulation	FAR
3.1.4	1	FAR 9.103	Regulation	FAR
3.1.4	2	http://www.epls.gov	Website	EPLS
3.1.4	3	FAR 9.1	Regulation	FAR
3.1.4	4	FAR 19.6	Regulation	FAR
3.1.4.1	1	FAR 9.104	Regulation	FAR
3.1.4.1	2	Federal Awardee Performance Integrity Information system (FAPIIS),	Website	FAPIIS
3.1.4.1	3	http://www.ccr.gov	Website	CCR
3.1.4.1	4	www.ppirs.gov	Website	PPIRS
3.1.4.1	5	FAR 42.15	Regulation	FAR
3.1.4.1	6	FAR 19.6	Regulation	FAR
3.1.4.1	7	FAR 9.1	Regulation	FAR
3.1.5	1	FAR 1.602-1(b)	Regulation	FAR
3.1.5	2	FAR 13.5	Regulation	FAR
3.1.5	3	Simplified Acquisition Documentation Record	Template	NOAA
3.1.5	4	FAR 13	Regulation	FAR
3.1.5.1	1	FAR 13.106	Regulation	FAR
3.1.5.1	2	Simplified Acquisition Documentation Record	Template	NOAA
3.1.5.2	1	FAR 13.5	Regulation	FAR
3.1.5.2	2	SAP Pre/Post-Negotiation BCM Template	Template	NOAA
3.1.5.2	3	SAP Post-Negotiation BCM	Template	NOAA
3.2.1	1	Source Selection Kickoff Memo Template	Template	NOAA
3.2.1	2	APG Solicitation Module	Internal	APG
3.2.1	3	Source Selection NDA Template	Template	NOAA
3.2.1	4	OGE Form 450	Form	DOC
3.2.1	5	APG Award Module	Internal	APG
3.2.1	6	APG Post-Award Module	Internal	APG
3.2.2	1	FAR 9.5	Regulation	FAR
3.2.2	2	Contractors as Evaluators	Template	NOAA
3.2.2	3	Source Selection Plan Template	Template	NOAA
3.2.2	4	NOAA Acquisition Handbook 15.2	Policy	NOAA
3.2.2	5	CAM 15-2.	Policy	DOC
3.2.2	6	FAR 37.204	Regulation	FAR
3.2.2	7	D&F Template To Use Contractors as Evaluators	Template	NOAA
3.2.2	8	APG Planning Module	Internal	APG
3.2.3	1	Office of Government Ethics (OGE) Form 450	Form	DOC
3.2.3	2	Source Selection Kickoff Memo Template	Template	NOAA
3.2.3.1	1	Procurement Integrity Act	Statute	Federal
3.2.3.1	2	Trade Secrets Act	Statute	Federal
3.2.3.1	3	Economic Espionage Act	Statute	Federal
3.2.3.1	4	FAR15.306 (e)	Regulation	FAR
3.2.3.2	1	FAR 2.101	Regulation	FAR
3.2.3.2	2	FAR 3.104-4	Regulation	FAR
3.2.3.3	1	APG Planning Section 1.11	Internal	APG
3.2.3.3	2	FAR 15.1	Regulation	FAR
3.2.3.3	3	FAR 13.106	Regulation	FAR
3.2.3.3	4	Army Source Selection Guide, February 2007	Guidance	Federal
3.2.3.3	5	FAR 15.101-2	Regulation	FAR
3.2.3.3	6	FAR 9.1	Regulation	FAR
3.2.4	1	APG 3.2.5	Internal	APG
3.2.4	2	FAR 15.306	Regulation	FAR
3.2.4	3	FAR 15.307	Regulation	FAR
3.2.4	4	APG Planning Module Section 1.11.1	Internal	APG
3.2.5	1	FAR 9.1	Regulation	FAR
3.2.5	2	Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)	Website	PPIRS
3.2.5	3	Past Performance Questionnaire Template	Template	NOAA
3.2.5	4	PPET Report Template.	Template	NOAA
3.2.5	5	Army Source Selection Guide, February 2007	Guidance	Federal
3.2.5	6	GAO	Website	GAO
3.2.5	7	B-296176.2, Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc., Dec. 9, 2005.	Decision	GAO
3.2.5	8	B-297654, Greater Pacific Aquatics, February 2, 2006	Decision	GAO
3.2.5	9	B-297791.2, Ideamatrics, Inc., May 26, 2006.	Decision	GAO
3.2.5	10	CAM 1342.15.	Policy	DOC
3.2.5.1	1	FAR 9.104-6	Regulation	FAR
3.2.5.1	2	http://www.ccr.gov	Website	CCR
3.2.5.1	3	www.cpars.csd.disa.mil	Website	CPARS
3.2.5.1	4	www.ppirs.gov	Website	PPIRS
3.2.5.1	5	FAR 42.15	Regulation	FAR
3.2.6	1	FAR 15.308	Regulation	FAR
3.3.2	1	FAR 15.3	Regulation	FAR
3.3.3	1	APG Evaluation Module Section 3.2.5	Internal	APG
3.4	1	Contract Pricing Reference Guide: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/cpf/contract_pricing_reference_guides.html	Guidance	Federal
3.4.1	1	FAR 15.403-4(a)(1)	Regulation	FAR
3.4.1.1	1	Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)	Website	DCAA
3.4.1.1	2	Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA)	Website	DCMA
3.4.1.1	3	FAR 15.404-2	Regulation	FAR
3.4.1.2	1	http://www.dcaa.mil	Website	DCAA
3.4.1.2	2	http://www.dcma.mil	Website	DCMA
3.4.1.2	3	FAR 15.404-2(b)(1)(ii)	Regulation	FAR
3.4.1.2	4	DCAA Form for Requesting Specific Cost/Rate Information	Form	Federal
3.4.1.2	5	Sample Request for Pricing Assistance from DCMA	Sample	Federal
3.4.1.2	6	Sample Request for DCAA Audit	Sample	NOAA
3.4.1.2	7	Checklist for Requesting Field Pricing Assistance from DCAA	Checklist	NOAA
3.4.1.3	1	Department of Commerce Inspector General at http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/index.html	Guidance	DOC
3.5	1	FAR 52.215-1	Regulation	FAR
3.5	2	FAR 15.306(a)(1)	Regulation	FAR
3.6	1	FAR 15.306(d)	Regulation	FAR
3.6.1	1	FAR 15.306(c)	Regulation	FAR
3.6.1	2	FAR 15.505	Regulation	FAR
3.6.1	3	FAR 15.506(d)	Regulation	FAR
3.6.2	1	APG Award Module Section 4.6	Internal	APG
3.6.2	2	FAR 15.506(d)	Regulation	FAR
3.6.2	3	FAR 24.202	Regulation	FAR
3.6.2	4	Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552)	Statute	Federal
3.6.2	5	FAR 15.506	Regulation	FAR
3.6.2	6	Proposed Debriefing Agenda Template	Template	NOAA
3.6.2	7	FAR 15.506(g).	Regulation	FAR
3.6.3	1	Sample Letter to Contractors Opening Discussions	Sample	NOAA
3.6.3	2	FAR 15.306(d)(2)	Regulation	FAR
3.6.4	1	FAR 15.307	Regulation	FAR
3.7	1	FAR 22.8	Regulation	FAR
3.7	2	Department of Labor (DOL) Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program (OFCCP)	Website	DOL
3.7	3	OFCCP national registry	Website	OFCCP
3.7	4	OFCCP regional office	Website	OFCCP
3.7	5	FAR 22.609	Regulation	FAR
3.7	6	Sample Request Letter for EEO Compliance Clearance	Sample	NOAA
3.7	7	E.O. 11246	E.O.	Federal
3.7	8	FAR 22.809	Regulation	FAR
3.8	1	NOAA Acquisition Handbook, Part 4	Policy	NOAA
3.8	2	DAO 208-05	Policy	DOC
3.8	3	Procurement Memorandum (PM) 2010-04,	Policy	NOAA
3.8	4	PM 2011-05,	Policy	NOAA
3.8	5	AA 10-04	Policy	NOAA
3.8	6	AA 10-05	Policy	NOAA
3.8	7	Simplified Acquisition Documentation Record	Template	NOAA
3.8.1.1	1	FAR 15	Regulation	FAR
3.8.1.1	2	FAR 15 BCM Template	Template	NOAA
3.8.1.1	3	FAR 13.5	Regulation	FAR
3.8.1.1	4	SAP Pre/Post-Negotiation BCM Template	Template	NOAA
3.8.1.1.1	1	FAR 15.306(c)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.1.1.1	2	FAR 15.505	Regulation	FAR
3.8.1.1.1	3	FAR 15.506(d)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.1.2	1	APG 3.8.7.1	Internal	APG
3.8.1.2	2	FAR 15	Regulation	FAR
3.8.1.2	3	FAR 15 BCM Template	Template	NOAA
3.8.1.2	4	APG 3.8.6	Internal	APG
3.8.1.2	5	SAP Post-Negotiation BCM Template	Template	NOAA
3.8.1.3	1	FAR 15	Regulation	FAR
3.8.1.3	2	FAR 15 BCM Template	Template	NOAA
3.8.1.3	3	FAR 13.5	Regulation	FAR
3.8.1.3	4	SAP Pre/Post-Negotiation BCM Template	Template	NOAA
3.8.2	1	Army Source Selection Guide, February 2007	Guidance	Federal
3.8.2.1	1	FAR 15.404-1	Regulation	FAR
3.8.2.1	2	FAR 15.403-1(c)(1)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.2.1.1	1	FAR 15.403-1	Regulation	FAR
3.8.2.1.1	2	FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(ii)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.2.1.1	3	Parametric Cost Estimating Handbook (http://cost.jsc.nasa.gov/PCEHHTML/pceh.htm)	Guidance	Federal
3.8.2.1.1	4	FAR 15‑403.3(c)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.2.1.1	5	FAR 8.602(a)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.2.1.1	6	APG Planning Module Section 1.3	Internal	APG
3.8.2.1.1	7	FAR 15.406-2	Regulation	FAR
3.8.2.1.1	8	Volume 1-Price Analysis	Guidance	Federal
3.8.2.1.1	9	DAU Price Analysis Techniques Training Material	Training	Federal
3.8.2.1.1	10	Commercial Sole Source Proposal Analysis Roadmap	Guidance	NOAA
3.8.2.1.1	11	FAR 15.403-1(c)(1) through (4)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3	1	FAR 15.403-1(b)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3	2	FAR 15.403-4	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3	3	FAR 15.403-1(b)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3	4	APG Evaluation Module Section 3.8.3.4	Internal	APG
3.8.3	5	Volume 1 – Price Analysis	Guidance	Federal
3.8.3	6	Volume 2 – Quantitative Techniques for Contract Pricing	Guidance	Federal
3.8.3	7	Volume 3 – Cost Analysis	Guidance	Federal
3.8.3	8	Volume 4 – Advanced Issues in Contract Pricing	Guidance	Federal
3.8.3	9	Volume 5 – Federal Contract Negotiation Techniques	Guidance	Federal
3.8.3.2	1	FAR 15.404-1(c)(2)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.2	2	FAR 31	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.2	3	FAR 15.407-2	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.3	4	FAR 15.403-1(b)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.3	5	FAR 15.403-1(c)(1)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.3	6	FAR 2.101	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.3	7	FAR 12	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.3	8	FAR 15.403-1(c)(3)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.3	9	FAR 15.403-2	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.5	1	FAR 31	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.5	2	FAR 31.205	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.5	4	FAR 30	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.5	5	FAR 31	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.5	6	FAR 31.205	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.5	7	FAR 31.205-7	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.5	8	FAR 31.205-18	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.5	9	FAR 31.205-23	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.5	10	FAR 31.205-46	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.5	11	FAR 31.205-51	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.5	12	FAR 31.205-1	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.5	13	FAR 31.205-3	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.5	14	FAR 31.205-6	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.5	15	FAR 31.205-8	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.5	16	FAR 31.205-13	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.5	17	FAR 31.205-14	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.5	18	FAR 31.205-15	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.5	19	FAR 31.205-17	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.5	20	FAR 31.205-20	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.5	21	FAR 31.205-22	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.5	22	FAR 31.205-27	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.5	23	FAR 31.205-31	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.5	24	FAR 31.205-47	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.5	25	FAR 31.205-48	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.5	26	FAR 31.205-49	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.6	1	FAR 52.230-1	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.6	2	CAS Coverage and Disclosure Statement Determination Flowchart	Guidance	Federal
3.8.3.6	3	FAR 52.230-1	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.6	4	FAR 52.230-2	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.6	5	FAR 52.230-6	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.6	6	FAR 52.230-3	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.6	7	FAR 52.230-6	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.6	8	FAR 52.230-3	Regulation	FAR
3.8.3.6	9	FAR 52.230-5	Regulation	FAR
3.8.4	1	Sample Proposal or Evaluation Format	Sample	NOAA
3.8.4	2	Instructions to Offerors	Guidance	NOAA
3.8.5	1	FAR 13	Regulation	FAR
3.8.5	2	Simplified Acquisition Documentation Record	Template	NOAA
3.8.5	3	FAR 13.5	Regulation	FAR
3.8.5	4	FAR 13.500(e)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.5	5	FAR 15	Regulation	FAR
3.8.5	6	SAP Pre/Post-Negotiation BCM Template	Template	NOAA
3.8.5	7	SAP Post-Negotiation BCM Template	Template	NOAA
3.8.6	1	FAR 13.5	Regulation	FAR
3.8.6	2	FAR 15	Regulation	FAR
3.8.6	3	FAR 12	Regulation	FAR
3.8.6	4	NOAA Acquisition Handbook, Part 4	Policy	NOAA
3.8.6	5	DAO 208-05	Policy	DOC
3.8.6	6	Procurement Memorandum (PM) 2010-04	Policy	DOC
3.8.6	7	PM 2011-05	Policy	DOC
3.8.6	8	AA 10-04	Policy	NOAA
3.8.6	9	AA 10-05	Policy	NOAA
3.8.7	1	FAR Part 15 BCM Template	Template	NOAA
3.8.7	2	FAR 13.5	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	1	FAR 16.601(c)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	2	FAR 16.603-3	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	3	FAR 6.202	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	4	FAR 1.7	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	5	FAR 6.302-7	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	6	FAR 1.7	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	7	FAR 45.302-1	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	8	FAR 37.204	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	9	FAR 6.303	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	10	NOAA Acquisition Handbook, Part 6	Policy	NOAA
3.8.7.1	11	APG Planning Module Section 1.8.2	Internal	APG
3.8.7.1	12	FAR 6.302	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	13	APG Planning Module Section 1.4	Internal	APG
3.8.7.1	14	FAR 5.202	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	15	APG Solicitation Module	Internal	APG
3.8.7.1	16	FAR 22.1001	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	17	FAR 22.10	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	18	FAR 2.101	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	19	FAR 37.101	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	20	FAR 37.104	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	21	FAR 30.202	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	22	FAR 15.403-1(b)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	23	FAR 31.201-6	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	24	FAR 44.201-1	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	25	FAR 52.244-5	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	26	FAR 52.244-6	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	27	FAR 44	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	28	FAR 12	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	29	FAR 52.244-2(b)(2)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	30	Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data	Guidance	Federal
3.8.7.1	31	FAR 15.408 Table 15-2(c)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	32	FAR 2.101	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	33	FAR 15.406-2	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	34	APG 3.4.1	Internal	APG
3.8.7.1	35	FAR 31.109	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	36	FAR 15.407-2	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	37	APG 3.7	Internal	APG
3.8.7.1	38	FAR 22.805	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	39	FAR 22.810	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	40	FAR 7.107	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.1	41	FAR 17.2	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.3	1	DOC PM 2008-01	Policy	DOC
3.8.7.3	2	FAR 16.104 ,	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.3	3	FAR 17.205(a),	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.3	4	FAR 17.202(a),	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.3	5	FAR 17.203(g),	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.3	6	FAR 43.201	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.6	1	APG 3.2.5	Internal	APG
3.8.7.7	1	FAR 15.403-1	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.8	1	FAR 52.216-25	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.8	2	Sample Proposal or Evaluation Format,	Sample	NOAA
3.8.7.8	3	http://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.toc.htm	Website	BLS
3.8.7.8	4	FAR 31.205-10	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.8	5	FAR 31.205-52	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.8	6	FAR 31.2	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.8	7	FAR 15.408(i)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.8	8	DD 1547 / DD 1861 Calculation Tool	Form	NOAA
3.8.7.8	9	Instructions to the Offeror	Guidance	NOAA
3.8.7.8	10	Federal Travel Regulation	Regulation	Federal
3.8.7.8	11	FAR 15.403-1	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.8	12	Weighted Guidelines Sample	Sample	NOAA
3.8.7.8	13	Sample Proposal or Evaluation Format	Sample	NOAA
3.8.7.9	1	NCMA Article: Incentive and Award-Fee Contracting.	Guidance	NCMA
3.8.7.9	2	FAR 16.405-1	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.9	3	FAR 16.405-2	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.9	4	FAR 16.405-2(b)(1)(i)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.11	1	FAR 16.203-1	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.11	2	FAR 45	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.11	3	FAR 32	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.11	4	FAR 31.205-39	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.11	5	FAR 2.101	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.11	6	FAR 7.4	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.11	7	NOAA Property Management Manual,	Policy	NOAA
3.8.7.11	8	AGO Personal Property Lease Handbook	Policy	NOAA
3.8.7.11	9	Lease Determination Worksheet	Template	NOAA
3.8.7.11	10	FAR 9.5	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.11	11	APG Introduction Module Section 0.3	Internal	APG
3.8.7.12	1	FAR 9.104	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.12	2	FAR 9.104-3(a)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.12	3	FAR 9.104-3(b)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.12	4	FAR 42.15	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.12	5	FAR 9.104-2	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.12	6	www.epls.gov	Website	EPLS
3.8.7.12	7	FAR 9.104-3(a)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.12	8	FAR 9.104-3(a)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.12	9	FAR 9.104-3(d)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.12	10	FAR 19.6	Regulation	FAR
3.8.7.12	11	FAR 52.219-14	Regulation	FAR
3.8.8.1	1	Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data	Guidance	Federal
3.8.8.1	2	FAR 15.406-2	Regulation	FAR
3.8.8.1	3	FAR 22.805	Regulation	FAR
3.8.8.1	4	FAR 22.810	Regulation	FAR
3.8.8.1	5	FAR 52.222-26	Regulation	FAR
3.8.8.1	6	FAR 22.807	Regulation	FAR
3.8.8.1	7	FAR 19.704(d)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.8.1	8	FAR 19.704(c)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.8.1	9	FAR 19.704	Regulation	FAR
3.8.8.1	10	FAR 19.705-5(b)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.8.3	1	FAR 15.406-3	Regulation	FAR
3.8.8.4	1	APG 3.2.5	Internal	APG
3.8.8.5	1	FAR 9.104	Regulation	FAR
3.8.8.5	2	FAR 9.104-3(a)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.8.5	3	FAR 9.104-3(b)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.8.5	4	FAR 42.15	Regulation	FAR
3.8.8.5	5	FAR 9.104-2	Regulation	FAR
3.8.8.5	6	Excluded Parties List System: www.epls.gov.	Website	EPLS
3.8.8.5	7	FAR 9.104-3(a)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.8.5	8	FAR 9.104-3(a)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.8.5	9	FAR 9.104-3(d)	Regulation	FAR
3.8.8.5	10	FAR 19.6	Regulation	FAR
3.8.8.5	11	FAR 52.219-14	Regulation	FAR
3.8.9	1	Simplified Acquisition Documentation Record (for requirements between $2,500 to the SAT)	Template	NOAA
3.8.9	2	SAP Pre/Post-Negotiation BCM Template (for requirements pursuant to FAR Subpart 13.5)	Template	NOAA
3.8.9	3	SAP Post-Negotiation BCM Template(for requirements pursuant to FAR Subpart 13.5)	Template	NOAA
3.8.9	4	FAR Part 15 BCM Template(for requirements pursuant to FAR Part 15)	Template	NOAA

-End Module-