14 FAH-2 H-430
THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS
(CT:COR-51; 04-19-2019)
(Office of Origin: A/OPE)
14 FAH-2 H-431 AWARD ON INITIAL
PROPOSALS
(CT:COR-37; 08-12-2015)
a. The contracting officer may receive clarifications
and choose to award on the basis of initial proposals, without having to
determine a competitive range and without holding discussions/negotiations.
The solicitation must have notified all offerors that the U.S. Government
intends to evaluate proposals and make award without discussion.
b. Clarifications are limited exchanges, between the
U.S. Government (contracting officer) and offerors, that may occur when award
without discussions is contemplated. Offerors may be given the opportunity to
clarify certain aspects of the proposals (e.g. the relevance of an offeror's's
past performance information and adverse past performance information to which
the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor
or clerical errors. (Reference the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 48 CFR
15.306).
c. The contracting officer must make the award
decision consistent with the evaluation factors stated in the request for
proposals (RFP), and must determine that the proposed awardee is responsible.
14 FAH-2 H-432 PRE-NEGOTIATION ACTIVITY
(CT:COR-51; 04-19-2019)
a. In conducting discussions/negotiations, the
contracting officer may be assisted by a negotiation team which could include
the COR and members of the technical evaluation panel (TEP). The contracting
officer must maintain control of the negotiations, and must be present at all
face-to-face negotiations and initiate all written negotiations.
b. Evaluating and analyzing proposals to determine the
competitive range alerts the contracting officer to technical weaknesses and
provides detailed information on the reasonableness of price or cost
estimates. Based on this information, the contracting officer prepares for
negotiations. The contracting officer may call upon the COR to assist him or
her in the preparation.
c. The Business Operations Division (A/OPE/AQM/BOD) provides cost/price analysis
support to the Office of Acquisitions Management (A/OPE/AQM) and Regional Procurement Support
Office (RPSO) personnel including engaging outside auditors to review
proposals.
14 FAH-2 H-433 DISCUSSIONS/NEGOTIATIONS
(CT:COR-37; 08-12-2015)
a. Discussions (also known as negotiations) are
exchanges, either in writing or orally, between the U.S. Government and each of
the offerors in the competitive range, with the intent of allowing the offeror
to revise its proposal. When negotiations are conducted in a competitive
acquisition, they take place after establishment of the competitive range and
are called discussions (reference FAR 48 CFR 15.306(d)).
b. Either written or oral discussions tailored to each
offeror's proposal must be conducted separately with each offeror whose
proposal is within the competitive range. The goal is to maximize the U.S.
Governments ability to obtain the best value, based on the requirement and the
evaluation factors in the solicitation.
c. The contracting officer points out to each offeror
the ambiguities, deficiencies, and significant weaknesses, if any, in its
proposal. The contracting officer also advises the offeror of any adverse past
performance information. The offeror is then given a reasonable opportunity to
support, clarify, correct, improve, or revise its proposal by means of a
written final proposal revision (reference FAR 48 CFR 15.306(d)(3)).
d. While the contracting officer and others
participating in the discussions may advise offerors of all areas in which
technical weaknesses are perceived, they must avoid "technical
leveling" by not helping an offeror bring its proposal up to the level of
other proposals through successive rounds of discussion, i.e., by pointing out
weaknesses resulting from the offeror's lack of diligence, competence, or
creativity in preparing the proposal.
e. No offeror may be given information which will
provide a competitive advantage over other offerors. An offeror's ranking in
relation to other offeror's should not be disclosed. The U.S. Government team
must be especially careful in discussions to avoid "technical
transfusion," meaning the disclosure of an offeror's technical ideas or
approaches which results in the improvement of a competing proposal. Do not
reveal the names of individuals providing reference information about an
offeror's past performance information (reference FAR 48 CFR 15.306(e)).
f. The U.S. Government should never compromise the
competitive environment by leading one offeror to believe that it will win if
it makes certain changes or concessions.
14 FAH-2 H-434 FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS
(CT:COR-37; 08-12-2015)
a. Following discussions with offerors, the contracting
officer indicates the closing of negotiations by requesting final proposal
revisions, thus allowing offerors an opportunity to revise or modify the
technical proposals, cost proposals, or both.
b. All offerors are given a common cut-off date to
submit final proposal revisions. When the final proposal revisions are
received, a final technical evaluation is required to determine if the
revisions affected the technical merits of the proposals, scores, or relative standing.
The same evaluation plan should be used for the final evaluation unless the
request for proposals (RFP) has been amended. Two sample Final Technical
Evaluation Reports are shown at 14 FAH-2
Exhibit H-434(1) for the tradeoff
process and 14
FAH-2 Exhibit H-434(2) for the lowest
price technically acceptable (LPTA) process.
c. The offeror's final proposal revision must be in
writing which the U.S. Government will use in determining which offeror to
select for contract award without obtaining further revision. The offeror
whose proposal offers the greatest advantage to the U.S. Government, price and
other factors considered, should receive the award (reference FAR 48 CFR
15.307).
14 FAH-2 H-435 THROUGH H-439 UNASSIGNED
14 FAH-2 Exhibit H-434(1)
Format for a Final Technical Evaluation Report Tradeoff Process
(CT:COR-37; 08-12-2015)
MEMORANDUM FOR: [Contracting Officer]
FROM: [Name], Chairperson,
Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP)
SUBJECT: Source Selection Recommendation - Request for
Proposals (RFP) [number]
Attached for your consideration are the results of the
TEPs evaluation of the final proposal revisions submitted under the subject
RFP.
I. Basis for Evaluation:
The TEP evaluated each final proposal revision
against the results from the initial evaluation of offers (see report dated [insert date of initial report], including the significant
technical questions and concerns raised by that review, and against the
evaluation criteria for award published in Section M of the RFP.
II. Ranking of Proposals:
Based upon its evaluation of the final proposal
revisions, the TEP revised the initial consensus ratings and technical
acceptability ratings as shown below:
|
Name of Offeror
|
Consensus Rating1
|
Acceptability2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Add
more blocks as necessary.]
III. Analysis of Proposals:
[For each
proposal, discuss how and if the final proposal revision resolved the concerns
and questions raised by the TEPs initial evaluation and what impact these
facts had on the final rating. Discuss the relative merits of the offers to
one another, including both principal weaknesses and strengths. This may be
done on a factor-by-factor basis.]
IV. Concurrence of TEP Members:
__________________________ ____________
Signature Date
__________________________ ____________
Signature Date
__________________________ ____________
Signature Date
[Adjust
as necessary.]
V. Attachments
[Rating
sheets, committee and/or advisor reports, reference checks documentation.]
14 FAH-2 Exhibit H-434(2)
Format for a Final Technical Evaluation Report Format Lowest Price
Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Process
(CT:COR-37; 08-12-2015)
MEMORANDUM FOR: [Contracting Officer]
FROM: [Name], Chairperson,
Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP)
SUBJECT: Final Technical Evaluation of Offers - Request
for Proposals (RFP) [number]
Attached for your consideration are the results of the
TEPs evaluation of the final proposal revisions submitted under the subject
RFP.
I. Basis for Evaluation:
The TEP evaluated each final proposal revision.
The final proposal revisions were evaluated against the results from the
initial evaluation of offers (see report dated [insert date of initial report],
including the significant technical questions and concerns raised by that
review, and against the evaluation criteria for award published in Section M of
the RFP.
II. Final Technical Acceptability of
Proposals:
Based upon its evaluation of the final proposal
revisions, the TEP has determined the following technical acceptability
ratings:
|
Name of Offeror
|
Acceptability3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Add
more blocks as necessary.]
III. Analysis:
[For
each proposal, discuss how and if the final proposal revision resolved the
concerns and questions raised by the TEPs initial evaluation and what impact
these facts had on the final determination of technical acceptability. Discuss
the relative merits of the offers to one another, including both principal
weaknesses and strengths. This may be done on a factor-by-factor basis.]
IV. Concurrence of TEP Members:
__________________________ ____________
Signature Date
__________________________ ____________
Signature Date
__________________________ ____________
Signature Date
[Adjust
as necessary.]
V. Attachments
[Rating
sheets, committee and/or advisor reports, reference checks documentation.]