14.4. The Execution Phase
14.4.1. Step Six – Execute the Strategy
14.4.1.1. Issue Request for Proposal (RFP) or Military Interdepartmental Purchase Request
14.4.1.2. Conduct Source Selection
14.4.1.2.1. Instructions to Offerors
14.4.1.2.2. Section L
14.4.1.2.3. Section M Evaluation Factors for Award
14.4.1.2.4. Relationship between PWS, Section L, and Section M
14.4.1.2.5. Role of Past Performance in Best Value Procurements
14.4.1.3. Pre-Award Approval Documents
14.4.1.4. Contract Award
14.4.1.5. Debrief Unsuccessful Offerors
14.4.1.6. Finalize Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)
14.4.1.7. Post-Award Implementation/Transition
14.4. The Execution Phase
14.4.1. Step Six - Execute the Strategy
Figure 14.4.1.F1. Model of Step Six
14.4.1.1. Issue Request for Proposal (RFP) or Military Interdepartmental Purchase Request
The formal acquisition process starts with the issuance of the final RFP or if the acquisition team has determined to use another activity’s acquisition vehicle to complete their action the issuance of a MIPR. FAR Part 15.201 states “After release of the solicitation, the contracting officer must be the focal point of any exchange with potential offerors. When specific information about a proposed acquisition that would be necessary for the preparation of proposals is disclosed to one or more potential offerors, that information must be made available to the public as soon as practicable, but no later than the next general release of information, in order to avoid creating an unfair competitive advantage.”
14.4.1.2. Conduct Source Selection
The objective of source selection is to select the offeror, whose proposal represents the best value in accordance with the criteria stated in the RFP. The FAR gives the government wide latitude in setting the ground rules for how a contractor’s proposal will be evaluated and for setting the basis of award.
The RFP’s Section L Instructions to Offerors and Section M Evaluation Factors for Award provide industry information regarding how to submit their offer and how it will be evaluated. Both of these are critical for a successful acquisition.
14.4.1.2.1. Instructions to Offerors
Section L of the solicitation is where information and guidance are provided to instruct offerors how to prepare proposals in response to the solicitation. As previously stated, the PWS, Section L and Section M all tie together. The PWS describes the requirement. Section L requests information relating to how the offeror will execute that requirement, for evaluation purposes. Section M describes how their proposal will be evaluated for source selection purposes.
14.4.1.2.2. Section L
You MUST explain in section L of the RFP the structure in which the offerors will submit their proposals (proposal instructions), and the requirement to specifically address those areas that will be evaluated and scored/rated during the source selection.
Proposal instructions: The instructions for submission of proposals should be complete and thorough, but not overly long, complex, or restrictive. Submission instructions vary, but most agencies have a “standard” or preferred format that is familiar to contracting officers and evaluators. For example, proposals may be submitted via disks, electronic media, orally, or in paper based form.
Contents of instructions: The most common content items to be prescribed in the instructions include the following: number of volumes, page limits, font, spacing, and other layout instructions.
Number of volumes: You should determine how many proposal volumes you want the contractor to submit. Proposal volumes can consist of technical, quality control plan, past performance and cost.
Page limits: Technical and business proposals can be very difficult to evaluate because of their great size and bulk, much of which may be caused by repetition. Placing a limit on the number of pages each proposal may contain reduces this problem. The typical limit is 50 to 100 pages, but be sure that the technical personnel concur that the technical and business approaches can be adequately explained within the limits that have been established.
Font, spacing, and other layout instructions: Instructions for these areas enforce a certain uniformity of appearance for proposals so evaluators will not be unduly influenced by a “flashy” layout, but will find it easier to concentrate on the essentials. However, do not impose unnecessary restrictions on the contractors’ ability to communicate the necessary information in their proposals (i.e., complicated charts and graphics).
Evaluation areas: Instructions should clearly require contractors to thoroughly address all evaluation areas. It is important for the contractor to know exactly what is going to be evaluated and what should be included in each volume of the proposal.
Oral presentations: Oral presentations are verbal submissions of proposal information. This information is used to determine the offeror’s understanding of the requirements and its capability to perform. When using oral presentations have the presenter be the proposed program manager and not a professional speaker.
14.4.1.2.3. Section M Evaluation Factors for Award
Section M is uniquely tailored for each procurement and is intended to give offerors guidance concerning the basis of award. You must explain all the evaluation factors and significant sub-factors that will be considered in making the source selection along with their relative order of importance (see FAR 15.304). Section M must clearly 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.
Evaluation Factors/Sub-Factors: Be sure that section M is clear and complete in describing the evaluation factors and significant sub-factors to be used. Each factor/sub-factor must be fully explained, and their relationship to each other (relative importance) must be clearly stated. The goal here is to make the offerors fully aware of how the source selection will be made.
One of the main challenges in determining best value is assessing performance risk. This is challenging because the offerors may be proposing different approaches that can be difficult to compare (an “apples to oranges” comparison). While Section M of a solicitation provides the basis for evaluation, there is no precise science to assessing dissimilar approaches toward fulfilling a PBA requirement.
14.4.1.2.4. Relationship between PWS, Section L, and Section M
The PWS, Section L, and Section M must all tie together. The PWS describes the requirement. Section L requests information relating to how the offeror will execute that requirement for evaluation purposes and Section M describes how the proposal will be evaluated for source selection purposes. The following example, Table 14.4.1.2.4.T1., describes one piece of a requirement to illustrate the relationship between the three areas.
Table 14.4.1.2.4.T1. Sections L and M Relationship Example
|
Performance Work Statement
|
Section L
|
Section M
|
|
Provide taxi service so that pickup time is within 5 minutes of request time, 95% of the time.
|
The offeror shall describe how taxi service will be provided in accordance with the stated requirement.
|
The agency will evaluate the offeror’s approach for meeting the standards for taxi service. The offer will be evaluated for best value, in terms of technical merit and cost, with additional consideration for the offerors relevant and recent past performance (track record).
|
14.4.1.2.5. Role of Past Performance in Best Value Procurements
The FAR mandates that government assess contractors’ past performance in order to use this information as a significant evaluation factor in the source selection process. Past performance data is an influential factor in motivating contractors toward excellence. The essential premise is that a record of good performance is an important predictor of future performance. When evaluating large business past performance an additional factor to consider is how effective they have been in meeting their small business subcontracting goals.
For those situations where an offeror has no past contract performance or the performance information is either unavailable or irrelevant, the FAR states that the offeror may not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on the past performance factor.
14.4.1.3. Pre-Award Approval Documents
These actions vary depending on the dollar value of the acquisition and organization policy. They may include pre-award surveys, pre-negotiation business clearances and Congressional notification, depending on the amount of the award.
14.4.1.4. Contract Award
Upon receipt of all required pre-award approvals and completion of required notifications, the contracting officer executes the contract. To give publicity to the award and recognize the team members, a formal contract signing ceremony often is conducted. This particularly is desirable in large and/or complex acquisitions.
14.4.1.5. Debrief Unsuccessful Offerors
FAR Section 15.5 requires that all unsuccessful offerors be given an opportunity for a debriefing concerning their proposal and how they can improve their chances in future procurements. Debriefings are conducted following contract award notification by the contracting officer and lead technical evaluator from the technical evaluation team.
14.4.1.6. Finalize Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)
Once a contractor has been selected, the QASP needs to be updated and finalized. If any significant changes were made to the performance requirements during the competition, the QASP needs to be updated to reflect the final requirement. Also now include the contractor’s information and the names and role of their key personnel. If a quality control (QC) plan was a required and evaluated as part of the contractors proposal package, the team may consider including the contractors compliance with their QC plan as an assessment area in the QASP. Make sure the COR has been appointed and completed all required training prior to contract award.
14.4.1.7. Post-Award Implementation/Transition
Following contract award, it’s advisable to conduct a "kick-off meeting" or more formally, a "post-award conference," attended by those who will be involved in contract performance. This meeting will help both agency and contractor personnel achieve a clear and mutual understanding of contract requirements and further establish the foundation for good communications and a win-win relationship. It is very important that the contractor become part of the team, and that agency and contractor personnel work closely together to achieve the mission results embodied in the contract.
DAG Tutorial 
