Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) Guiding Principles For Fair

Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC)

Guiding Principles

For

Fair Opportunity Selection Under

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 16.505(b)(1)

Owner: HQ AFMC/PKQ

Date: November 2019

Version: 3.1

Table of Contents

1.0 Description……………………………………………………………………………… 1-3

2.0 FAR 15.3 to FAR 16.5 Comparison……………………………………………………. 4-9

3.0 Sample FAR 16.505(b)(1) Fair Opportunity Process Workflow and Activities………... 9-10

Process Flowchart…………………………………………………………………………… 11

3.1 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)…………………………………………………….. 11-15

Appendix A, Automation…………………………………………………………………… 16

Appendix B, Evaluation Criteria……………………………………………………………. 17-18

Appendix C, Fair Opportunity Selection Plan (FOSP)……………………………………... 19

Appendix D, Page Limitations……………………………………………………………… 20

Appendix E, Multifunctional Independent Review Teams (MIRTs)……………………….. 21

Appendix F, Business/Contract Clearance………………………………………………….. 22

Appendix G, Oral Proposals and Oral Interchanges………………………………………... 23-25

Appendix H, Interchanges…………………………………………………………………... 26-27

Appendix I, Evaluation Documentation Requirements……………………………………... 28-29

Appendix J, Glossary of Terms……………………………………………………………... 30-33

Appendix K, Notification to Offerors………………………………………………………..34

Template A, Ordering Procedures………………………………………………………... 35

Template B, Market Research Report………………………………………………………. 35

Template C, Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR)…………………………………... 35

Template D, Fair Opportunity Selection Plan (FOSP)……………………………………… 35

Template E, Oral Presentation Instructions…………………………………………………. 35

Template F, Interchange Notice (IN)……………………………………………………….. 35

Template G, Fair Opportunity Decision Authority (FODA) Briefing Sample if FODA is not

Contracting Officer………………………………………………………………………….. 36

Template H, Fair Opportunity Decision Document (FODD)……………………………….. 36

Template I, FAR 16.5 Fair Opportunity Selection Work Breakdown Structure

(WBS)/Schedule Tool………………………………………………………………………. 36

Fair Opportunity Selection – FAR 16.505(b)(1)

1.0 Description.

Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (MAC IDIQ) contracts are appropriate

for use when the Government has a known requirement but the exact timing or occurrence of the

requirement can’t be identified. These contracts are awarded to multiple awardees using FAR

15.3 source selection procedures, with the intent to conduct fair opportunity task/delivery order

competitions among the awardees in accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(1). Task Orders (TO) are

established for services, while Delivery Orders (DO) procure supplies. The Government can

conduct fair opportunity competitions against a MAC IDIQ as long as the requirement is within

scope of the IDIQ and cumulative value of all orders doesn’t exceed the maximum value of the

MAC IDIQ.

FAR 16.505(b)(1) allows flexibility in conducting fair opportunity competitions where it states:

[T]he contracting officer may exercise broad discretion in developing appropriate order

placement procedures...contracting officers may use streamlined procedures, including

oral presentations…the competition requirements in Part 6 and the policies in Subpart

15.3 do not apply to the ordering process.

This language creates an environment where the Contracting Officer (CO) can significantly

reduce procurement lead time by developing simplified and streamlined ordering processes to

compete orders amongst the pre-selected qualified MAC IDIQ contract holders. The CO

documents the chosen fair opportunity competition processes within the MAC IDIQ Ordering

Procedures, and includes the ordering procedures within the basic MAC IDIQ contract. The

subsequent fair opportunity solicitations, called the Fair Opportunity Proposal Requests

(FOPRs), may also contain a description or clarification of the competitive processes that will be

followed to compete a given order.

Many acquisition teams do not capitalize on the flexibility and potential time savings associated

with the less formal FAR 16.505 competition strategies because the FAR and its supplements do

not contain more specific guidance or information on how COs can utilize their “broad

discretion.” As a result, the advantages available through competing an action under a MAC

IDIQ are underutilized as many teams spend valuable time, money and resources using formal

FAR 15.3 source selection procedures because there is so much regulation, training and sample

documentation available. Simply put, the current acquisition community is extremely conversant

with FAR 15.3 source selection procedures, so teams revert to using formal FAR 15.3

competition procedures rather than exploring and utilizing the streamlining opportunities

afforded by FAR 16.505.

AFMC developed these guiding principles to provide acquisition teams more information on:

- Understanding the difference between FAR 16.5 fair opportunity competitions

compared to the FAR 15.3 source selection process;

- Possible FAR 16.505(b)(1) fair opportunity competition ordering strategies for team

consideration as they employ the CO’s “broad discretion” to develop appropriate

ordering procedures for their situation.

This Guiding Principles document is organized as follows:

- A quick look comparison of FAR 15.3 source selection against FAR 16.5 ordering

procedures (ref para 2.0);

- A tailorable FAR 16.5 fair opportunity Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)/Schedule

tool reflecting a baseline process workflow describing the fair opportunity process

from requirement identification to order award for actions SAT < $1B (ref para 3.1).

It does not replace or supersede any existing laws, regulations, directives, policies, or

instructions. It is not meant to be a one-process fits all. It is an example for

acquisition teams to consider as they identify the competitive ordering strategies

appropriate for their acquisition. This process is meant as a starting point to guide

teams, who are encouraged to tailor the baseline process workflow to support their

acquisition. The tailorable Excel file is included within Template I. This tool will

assist acquisition teams in identifying activities required for each particular

acquisition and establish durations based on the circumstances of each acquisition.

The activities listed may or may not be required so teams should modify activities to

fit their acquisition. Additionally, the template allows teams to delete unnecessary

steps and/or further break down activities into smaller tasks for scheduling and

tracking;

- Appendices that describe various methodologies acquisition teams may employ when

conducting fair opportunity competitions. These appendices describe how to utilize

the strategies and identify key team considerations when selecting strategies

appropriate for their competition;

- Establishes new lexicon (See Appendix J) distinguishing FAR 16.5 from FAR 15.3.

This FAR 16.5 lexicon is important because it will:

o Establish a FAR 16.5 “mindset” for all Government and industry stakeholders

involved in TO/DO competitions under a MAC IDIQ contract. Use of a

unique FAR 16.505 lexicon will facilitate a common understanding and

proficiency in competing orders in the less formal and more flexible

environment afforded by a FAR 16.505 fair opportunity competition;

o Help differentiate the competitive ordering process of FAR 16.5 from the

FAR 15.3 source selection process. For example, under FAR 15.3 and related

Air Force guidance, the use of discussions requires establishing a competitive

range, holding discussions with all Offerors in the competitive range and (as

applicable) conducting contract clearance prior to requesting Final Proposal

Revisions (FPRs). However, when following the procedures within these

guiding principles and invoking Interchanges, a competitive range does not

have to be established and contract clearance to request FPRs may not have to

be conducted. In addition Interchanges with offerors are not subject to the

FAR 15.3 rules, but should be conducted to afford all offerors a fair

opportunity for consideration. The Government Accountability Office (GAO)

has clarified “when exchanges with the agency occur in task order

competitions, they must be fair and not misleading.” AT&T Corp., B-414886,

Oct. 5, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 330. Further, “[w]hen holding discussions,

procuring agencies are not permitted to engage in conduct that favors one

offeror over another.” Id.

o Help identify to Offerors that the Government is conducting the acquisition in

accordance with (IAW) FAR 16.5 and not FAR 15.3. This is key as case law

has enforced FAR 15.3 source selection rules when acquisitions rely heavily

on FAR 15.3 procedures and terminology even if the acquisition states it will

be conducted under FAR 16.5. It is not wrong to use FAR 15.3 procedures for

ordering; and indeed the procedures may support an award determination

when undertaking complex acquisitions under an IDIQ, but if they are used,

those FAR 15.3 procedures must be followed as outlined in FAR 15.3, as the

GAO will apply them if a protest is filed. Although acquisition teams may

use FAR 15.3 procedures for order selection and award, they should consider

if these procedures are necessary, given complexity of the acquisition, since

employing FAR 15.3 may introduce additional steps, and thus time, to the

acquisition.

- Tailorable FAR 16.505 templates.

MAC IDIQ contracts must describe the fair opportunity competition processes that will be

utilized to compete and award orders against them (FAR 16.504(a)(4)(iv)). This is accomplished

with the ordering procedures which are included in the basic MAC IDIQ. In some cases, these

are written very broadly, using terminology along the lines of “Orders placed under this MAC

IDIQ will be competitively awarded using FAR 16.505(b)(1) fair opportunity processes.” In

those cases, the specific ordering process procedures are contained in the FOPR allowing teams

maximum flexibility to select ordering processes appropriate for each individual order. When

this is the approach utilized, the cognizant Fair Opportunity Decision Authority (FODA) and

Clearance Approval Authority (CAA) will review the proposed fair opportunity processes via

Acquisition Plan/Acquisition Strategy Panels and business/contract clearance reviews for each

order, as applicable.

When the MAC IDIQ ordering procedures are very detailed, covering all aspects of the ordering

process, the teams may not need to accomplish the acquisition strategy reviews/documentation

and business clearance with each order being competed.

When the Government desires to alter the competitive strategies utilized on a MAC IDIQ, it must

first consider the content of the basic MAC IDIQ. How specific is the language of the MAC

IDIQ ordering procedures? If the ordering procedures are written very broadly, the team will

have to ensure that individual FOPRs are very clear and unambiguous about which fair

opportunity competition strategies will be employed for that individual order competition. It is

also advisable to notify MAC IDIQ contractors about the strategies employed as soon as

possible, in any format deemed appropriate by the team (e.g. Industry Days, draft FOPR

issuance, contracting officer letters/emails). If the MAC IDIQ ordering procedures are written

very specifically, they would need to be changed and incorporated into the basic MAC IDIQ via

a bilateral modification.

It is important to note that while FAR 16.5 grants COs discretion to streamline the ordering

process, some of the guiding principles on streamlining opportunities may come with risk.

Procuring activities should consider both the risk and the opportunities, available in making FAR

16.5 acquisition decisions. The key will be to plan a purchase that will provide a fair opportunity

to all Offerors, clearly identify the fair opportunity procedures that will be utilized, either in the

MAC IDIQ and/or the FOPR, document the decision making process and demonstrate in the

documentation how each Offeror received a fair opportunity for consideration while engaging

with program counsel throughout the process. Finally, the importance of conducting the

evaluation in accordance with the stated fair opportunity procedures and documenting the

rationale for the award decision cannot be over emphasized.

2.0 FAR 15.3 to FAR 16.5 Comparison

This chart provides a comparison of the differences between FAR 15.3 source selection

procedures and FAR 16.5 fair opportunity competition procedures. This chart only touches on

areas where there are differences, it does not address every acquisition process area. For

example, legal review is required over given thresholds regardless if it is a FAR 15.3 or FAR

16.5 acquisition. Just because something is not covered in this comparison chart does not

automatically imply it is not needed.

EZ Source

FAR 15.3

Mandated Source Selection Tool for competitive acquisition >$100M

FAR 16.5

Not required to use EZ Source

Notes

In general, utilize automation where ever possible to streamline and expedite acquisition

documentation and correspondence. Encourage electronic submission and update of cost

proposals. Use macros to the greatest extent practicable to automate duplicative/manual data-

entry Government processes/analysis. However, use of EZ Source for FAR 16.5 acquisitions

can add complexity.

Decision

Authority

FAR 15.3

Source Selection Authorities identified in FAR 15.303, AFFARS MP 15.3, para 1.4.1.1.

FAR 16.5

The CO is the FODA for all fair opportunity order competitions unless another FODA is

determined on a case-by-case basis based on program or order specifics.

Notes

FAR 16.505(b)(1)(ii) states the policies in FAR 15.3 do not apply to the ordering process. If the

FODA is not the CO, the acquisition cycle could increase significantly.

Protests

FAR 15.3

All actions regardless of dollar value can be protested IAW procedures at FAR 33

FAR 16.5

Per FAR 16.505(a)(10), NO protest under subpart 33.1 is authorized in connection with the

issuance or proposed issuance of an order, except for:

1) Protest only possible if the order increases the scope, period or max value of the Indefinite

Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract or value in excess of $25M

2) Protests of orders may only be filed with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) IAW

procedures at FAR 33.104 (this eliminates possibility of agency protests and protests to the

United States Court of Federal Claims)

Ordering

Procedures

FAR 15.3

N/A

FAR 16.5

Yes, as applicable and implemented via each individual IDIQ IAW FAR 16.504(a)(4)(iv)

Notes

FAR 16.505(a)(6) states that orders may be placed by using any medium specified in the

contract. FAR 16.505(b)(1)(ii) states "the contracting officer may exercise broad discretion in

developing appropriate ordering procedures...and should tailor the procedures to each

acquisition".

Ordering procedures established within a MAC IDIQ describe the competition

procedures/templates that will be used to compete orders. Ideally, detailed ordering procedures

are drafted and included as part of the MAC IDIQ basic contract solicitation and award. When

the ordering procedures contain sufficient detail, the need for some acquisition documentation

for TO/DO competitions may be eliminated (e.g. AFFARS 5307.104-92(b)(2)(a) states that

TO/DOs issued in accordance with the terms of the basic contract (except for non-DoD orders >

$10M) do not require an Acquisition Plan (AP) or a Streamlined Acquisition Strategy Summary

(SASS)).

Additional

Details At:

Template A: Ordering Procedures

Requirement

FAR 15.3

Requirement must be developed IAW FAR 11 and clearly identified to potential Offerors.

FAR 16.5

IAW FAR 16.505(a)(2), orders shall clearly describe all services to be performed or supplies to

be delivered so the full cost or price for the performance can be established. Orders shall be

within the scope, period of performance and maximum value of the MAC IDIQ. IAW FAR

16.505(a)(3), performance-based acquisition methods must be used to the maximum extent

practicable, if the requirement is for services (see FAR 37.102(a) and FAR 37.6).

Notes

1. Communicate requirements to potential Offerors via the FOPR, draft FORP, Industry Days,

etc.

2. See FAR 16.505(a)(4) and its supplements when procuring items peculiar to one

manufacturer via a Fair Opportunity Exception (FOE)

Case Law

AllWorld Language Consultants, Inc, B-411481.3, Jan 6, 2016: an order cannot be awarded

outside of the ordering period of the basic IDIQ contract, and the government cannot exercise an

option on an order after the underlying IDIQ period of performance (as defined in FAR 52.216-

22) expires.

Acquisition

Plan

FAR 15.3

Actions above the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) to less than $10M require a

Streamlined Acquisition Strategy Summary (SASS). Actions equal to or greater than $10M

require an acquisition plan. See AFFARS 5307.104-92(b)(2) for exceptions.

FAR 16.5

1) Orders placed under an IDIQ awarded by another agency (i.e., a Governmentwide acquisition

contract, or multi-agency contract) are not exempt from the development of acquisition plans

(see Subpart 7.1) IAW FAR 16.505(a)(8).

2) Acquisition plans are required for all orders except TO/DOs issued in accordance with the

terms of the basic contract (except non-DoD orders > $10M) IAW AFFARS 5307.104-

92(b)(2)(a).

Notes

Best Practice: Acquisition plans may be written on a systems basis (see FAR 7.103(g)). Formal

acquisition planning may not be required at the order level if conducted at the systems level.

Multi-

Functional

Independent

Review Teams

(MIRT)

FAR 15.3

IAW AF PGI 5301.9001(b), The use of multi-functional independent review teams (MIRT) is

considered a best practice for high dollar value or complex competitive acquisitions.

FAR 16.5

IAW AF PGI 5301.9001(b), The use of multi-functional independent review teams (MIRT) is

considered a best practice for high dollar value or complex competitive acquisitions.

Notes

1) Best Practice: Establish a "standing MIRT membership" for MAC IDIQ order competitions

that will be utilizing MIRTs -- this will establish a standing team of subject matter experts who

are familiar with the MAC IDIQ, thus expediting MIRT reviews and serving as standing advisors

for overall MAC IDIQ contract administration questions.

FedBizOps

Synopsis

FAR 15.3

Publicizing of contract actions required IAW FAR 5.2.

FAR 16.5

In general, not required per FAR 16.505(a)(1)

Notes

See FAR 16.505(a)(4), 16.505(a)(11) and 16.505(b)(2)(ii)(D) for situations requiring posting.

Draft

Solicitation

(DRFP)

FAR 15.3

Highly recommended per the DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 2.4.

FAR 16.5

Not required.

Notes

If there is uncertainty about any requirement, coordinating the requirement(s) with industry is a

good practice. This will help ensure a "fair opportunity.” In addition, it will improve the quality

of proposals, thereby reducing evaluation timeline. A Draft FOPR could also be used in

conjunction with an industry day or preproposal conference.

Solicitation

FAR 15.3

Requires a Request for Proposals (RFP) with mandatory use of rating definitions established in

DoD Source Selection Procedures (Sections L & M)

FAR 16.5

Requires a FOPR. However, tailored evaluation ratings/descriptions for inclusion within the

instructions to Offerors and evaluation criteria may be created.

Notes

FAR 16.505(b)(1)(ii) states "The CO should keep submission requirements to a minimum. COs

may use streamlined procedures, including oral presentations. Include the procedures in the

solicitation and in the contract and consider price or cost under each order as one of the factors in

the selection decision."

Best Practice: Be clear and explicit that you are not using FAR 15.3 & DoD Source Selection

Procedures; use the FAR 16.5 lexicon, not the FAR 15.3 terminology.

Additional

Details At:

Appendix B: Evaluation Criteria; Appendix D: Page Limitations; Template C: FOPR

Case Law

Matter of: Bay Area Travel, Inc.; Cruise Ventures, Inc.; Tzell-AirTrak Travel Group, Inc., (B-

400442; B-400442.2; B-400442.3; B-400547; B-400547.2; B-400547.3; B-400564; B-400564.2;

B-400564.3), 5 Nov 08. “GAO will review the issuance of task and delivery order…to ensure

that the evaluation is in accord with the solicitation and applicable procurement laws and

regulations.” General Dynamics Information Technolocy, Inc., (B-414387.2), 30 May 17.

“Protest…is denied where record shows that agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent

with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations.”

Evaluation

Criteria

FAR 15.3

Best value can be obtained using any one or a combination of approaches within the Best Value

continuum. Cost/price and quality of product/service through consideration of one or more non-

cost factors must be evaluated. Past Performance and Small Business participation must be

evaluated (some exceptions). Standardized rating tables and definitions established. Reference:

DoD Source Selection Procedures.

FAR 16.5

Cost/price must be considered under each order as one of the factors in the selection decision.

No additional mandatory evaluation factors, rating tables or definitions established in FAR 16.5

Notes

1. Acquisition teams should focus on the minimum key discriminators needed to determine the

awardee, use page limitations (include only # of pages necessary based on dollar & complexity

of the order), limit evaluation criteria to meaningful evaluation factors (qualifications) and

streamlined procedures, such as in past performance considerations.

2. Where award will be made on a best value basis, a written statement must be included stating

the relative importance of quality and price or cost factors.

3. Consider limiting past performance, if evaluated, to contractor performance on orders within

the basic IDIQ, specifically to those that are similar in scope. See FAR 16.505.

Additional

Details At:

Appendix B: Evaluation Criteria

Source

Selection Plan

(SSP)

FAR 15.3

Required for all best-value, negotiated, competitive acquisitions IAW DoD Source Selection

Procedures, para 2.2. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) must approve the plan before the

final solicitation is issued.

FAR 16.5

Not required.

Notes

If the FODA is someone other than the CO, it may be prudent for the acquisition team to

document a Fair Opportunity Selection Plan (FOSP) to guide/organize the evaluation.

Additional

Details At:

Template D: Fair Opportunity Selection Plan (FOSP)

SSEB/SSAC

FAR 15.3

DoD Source Selection Procedures outline source selection team roles and responsibilities under

paragraph 1.4. Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) is required and Source Selection

Advisory Council (SSAC) is required over $100M.

FAR 16.5

No selection team structure is defined or mandated.

Business

Clearance to

issue the

Solicitation

FAR 15.3

IAW AFFARS 5301.9001, required for operational contracting actions > $3M and for PEO and

Enterprise contracting > $5M for actions identified in AFFARS 5301.9000.

FAR 16.5

AFFARS 5301.9000(b)(6) excludes from business clearance: Competitive order solicitations and

orders issued in accordance with FAR 8.4, 13, or 16.5 and against existing MAC ID/IQ,

GWACs, and FSS contracts in accordance with the terms and conditions and ordering

procedures of the basic contract.

Additional

Details At:

Appendix F: Business/Contract Clearance

Exchanges with

Offerors After

Receipt of

Proposals

FAR 15.3

FAR 15.306 and the DoD Source Selection Procedures (para 3.5) establish specific guidelines

for clarifications, communications and discussions.

FAR 16.5

FAR 16.5 does not establish any specific guidelines for interacting with Offerors after receipt of

proposals but, does allow Interchanges/exchanges (interactions with Govt & Industry).

Notes

Ensure the FOPR outlines the Interchange procedures the fair opportunity team will use, and that

the team conducts Interchanges in a manner that is fair and reasonable (i.e., that affords all

offerors a fair opportunity). Specifically ensure the FOPR indicates "The Government may

conduct Interchanges with one, some, none or all Offerors at its discretion, if determined to be

part of the fair opportunity process." This supports the team’s effort to conduct a streamlined

evaluation, while also affirming the CO’s obligation to ensure each Offeror has a fair opportunity

to be considered for award.

Best Practice: Evaluate all submissions before interacting with any of the Offerors. The last

submission evaluated may be awardable as submitted, so any earlier interactions may have been

wasted effort. Document how the Interchanges conducted by the fair opportunity team ensured

that each Offeror had a fair opportunity to be considered for award of the order. Even if the

Interchanges process is strictly in accordance with the stated criteria in the FOPR, the CO must

ensure that each Offeror received a fair opportunity to be considered for award.

Additional

Details At:

Template C: Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR)

Competitive

Range

FAR 15.3

If discussions are to be held, a competitive range determination must be completed IAW FAR

15.306(c) to enter into discussions with all Offerors within the competitive range.

FAR 16.5

No requirement to establish a formal competitive range to interact with Offerors.

Notes

Competitive Range may not be required, but if the decision is made not to continue on with a

proposal, document the file with the reasons why.

Evaluation

Notices

FAR 15.3

If discussions are conducted, the CO must indicate to, or discuss with, each Offeror still being

considered for award, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and adverse past performance

information to which the Offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond. IAW FAR

15.306(d)

FAR 16.5

An Interchange Notice (IN) is used to accurately capture the contemporaneous sharing of

information between the Government and the Offerors. An IN may address any aspect of the

proposal: technical, cost/price, past performance, contract documentation, and/or any other

matter in the evaluation process. To ensure a fair opportunity, however, when a CO issues INs

to offerors, the CO must ensure all offers receive fair consideration for award. If Interchanges are

not conducted with all offerors, the CO will need to document why some offerors were excluded

and how the “excluded” offerors nevertheless received a fair opportunity for consideration.

Additional

Details At:

Appendix G: Oral Proposals and Oral Interchanges; Appendix H: Interchanges; Template F:

Interchange Notice (IN)

Comparative

Analysis

FAR 15.3

The SSEB first conducts an in-depth review of each proposal against the factors and subfactors

established in the solicitation. The SSAC then provides the written comparative analysis. If no

SSAC, SSA completes the analysis. The SSEB should only make an award recommendation if

requested by the SSA. DoD Source Selection Procedures para 1.4.3.1.3, 3.1 and 3.8.

FAR 16.5

No process is dictated by FAR 16.5. Immediate comparison of responses received is allowed

without having to “independently score” proposals and then separately do comparative analysis.

Additional

Details At:

Appendix I: Evaluation Documentation Requirements

Contract

Clearance (to

request Final

Proposal

Revisions)

FAR 15.3

Required when discussions are held IAW AFFARS 5301.9000 for operational contracting

actions > $3M and PEO and Enterprise contracting > $5M.

FAR 16.5

When conducting Interchanges IAW the procedures within these guiding principles, Offerors do

not have to be offered an opportunity for FPRs. If FPRs are not requested, this contract

clearance is not required.

Notes

If FPRs are requested, this clearance is required as applicable based on AFFARS 5301.9000 and

5301.9001.

Additional

Details At:

Appendix F: Business/Contract Clearance

Final Proposal

Revision (FPR)

FAR 15.3

Must request FPRs after discussions. At the conclusion of discussions, each Offeror still within

the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit a FPR IAW DoD Source Selection

Procedures, paragraph 3.5.

FAR 16.5

When conducting Interchanges IAW the procedures within these guiding principles, Offerors do

not have to be offered an opportunity to revise their proposal through a formal FPR.

Notes

If FPRs are requested, follow FPR procedures IAW FAR 15.3 and the DoD Source Selection

Procedures.

Case Law

Mid Atlantic Professionals, Inc. d/b/a SSI, B-413486, Nov 3, 2016. “There is no requirement in

the contract that the agency solicit and accept written FPRs after conducting discussions. We see

nothing unreasonable or unfair about the agency’s decision not to request written FPRs, as would

be the case in the context of a negotiated procurement conducted under FAR part 15.”

Contract

Clearance (to

make an Award

Decision)

FAR 15.3

IAW AFFARS 5301.9000 and AFFARS 5301.9001 required for operational contracting actions

> $3M and PEO and Enterprise contracting > $5M.

FAR 16.5

AFFARS 5301.9000(b)(6) excludes competitive order solicitations and orders issued in

accordance with FAR 8.4, 13, or 16.5 and against existing MAC ID/IQ, GWACs, and FSS

contracts in accordance with the terms and conditions and ordering procedures of the basic

contract from contract clearance.

Selection

Documentation

FAR 15.3

Contract file must document the evaluation and decision using documentation formats/templates

outlined in AFFARS 5315.3 including SSEB Report, Competitive Range Decision Document

(CRDD), Pre-FPR Request Briefing, Comparative Analysis Report and Award Recommendation

(CAR), Final Decision Briefing and Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD). IAW the

DoD Source Selection Procedures, the relative strengths, deficiencies, significant weaknesses,

and risks identified as the result of the proposal evaluation shall be documented in the contract

file.

FAR 16.5

Documentation of basis for the award is required for all orders.

Where award on orders >$5.5M is made on a best value basis, FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iv)(D) requires

a written statement documenting the basis for the award and relative importance of quality and

price/cost factors. Formal evaluations plans or scoring of quotes/offers are not required

Notes

Documentation may be accomplished in one long running record of evaluation (Journal

Approach), accomplished via checklists, or may be in discrete steps/phases. The Fair

Opportunity Decision Document (FODD) may document the entire selection, including the

initial and final evaluation results (when Interchanges are used) but, the CO has discretion to

separately document the evaluation results from the FODD.

Additional

Details At:

Template H: Fair Opportunity Decision Document (FODD)

Case Law

Navistar Def., LLC; BAE Sys., Tactical Vehicle Sys. LP, B-401865 et al., Dec. 14, 2009, 2009

CPD ¶ 258 at 13. The Army did not sufficiently document the evaluation enough to allow GAO

the ability to assess the reasonableness of the evaluation.

DD1279 Notice

of Award

FAR 15.3

DD 1279 required for all contract awards over $7M IAW DFARS 205.303(a)(i)

FAR 16.5

DD 1279 only needed for TO/DOs if IDIQ estimated contract value has already been reached

and the order is more than $7M. DFARS 205.303(a)(i)(B)

Notes

Understand the MAC IDIQ requirements. For example, GSA Alliant specifically calls out

DD2579 is done at the TO/DO level and not at the IDIQ level.

Notice to

Unsuccessful

Offerors &

Debriefings

FAR 15.3

Notifications and debriefings required for all actions upon request of the unsuccessful Offeror

IAW FAR 15.503, 15.505 and 15.506.

FAR 16.5

IAW FAR 16.505(b)(6), post-award notices to Unsuccessful Offerors are only required for

orders >$5.5M and Debriefings only required upon request. Procedures at FAR 15.503(b) shall

be followed when providing post-award notifications and FAR 15.506 shall be followed when

providing debriefings to unsuccessful Offerors.

3.0 Sample FAR 16.505(b)(1) Fair Opportunity Process Workflow and Activities

Figure 1 identifies the detailed events and activities that may be completed for orders from

SATup to $1B via a Process Flow Chart.

Teams are encouraged to pursue continuous improvement in the utilization and administration of

MAC IDIQs by conducting periodic reviews of how effective the MAC IDIQ fair opportunity

competition procedures have been in procuring the requirement in the most efficient and cost-

effective manner possible that consider, for example:

• Have acquisition teams been meeting or beating the anticipated fair opportunity competition

schedules for a given MAC IDIQ?

• Did the evaluation criteria during award of the MAC IDIQs ensure Government

consideration of key discriminators when evaluating offers that are not needed to be

evaluated within the ordering process?

• Were the page limitations appropriate?

• Is there a lot of variety among the individual order competition procedures? Is it effective?

Would it be appropriate to edit the MAC IDIQ ordering procedures to include common

procedures?

• What best practices/lessons learned can be implemented into the MAC IDIQ ordering

procedures?

Another critical continuous improvement strategy is to maintain strong communication among

all stakeholders, to include the Government end user as well as the MAC IDIQ industry

members. Ideally, this will help ensure contractors are given concise, firm requirements, and

produce responsive, timely proposals. It promotes a win/win environment where known

requirements support the establishment of appropriate fair opportunity competition procedures

and strategies, leading to a streamlined acquisition schedule and stronger proposals/government

debriefs, which will reduce costs and save time for all parties. Most importantly, continuous

improvement and strong communications across all stakeholders will encourage acquisition

teams to pursue every opportunity to support the end user, their customer.

DAU Training: CLC 030 Essential of Interagency Acquisitions/Fair Opportunity. This module

is designed to provide DoD acquisition professionals with a better understanding of the need to

ensure that non-DoD contracting instruments are appropriately used by DoD contracting

personnel.

GSA Training: GSA Schedules vs. Open Market - This course will familiarize you with three

commonly used methods of acquisition: issuing task or delivery orders using GSA’s Multiple

Award Schedules (MAS) under FAR Subpart 8.4, negotiating a stand-alone order under FAR

Part 13 and negotiating a contract under FAR Part 15. Available at:

https://www.gsa.gov/portal/mediaId/152783/fileName/GSA_MAS_vs_Open_Mkt_StudentGuide

_Fall2014.action

Figure 1. Fair Opportunity Selection Process—Detailed Flow Chart

3.1 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)/Schedule. The WBS/Schedule, Table 1, provides

additional detail for the activity boxes in the flowchart above. Teams are encouraged to use the

tailorable tool in Template I to identify the activities required for their individual acquisition as

well as project durations given their environment and circumstances. This tool will assist teams

identify activities required for each particular acquisition and establish an acquisition schedule

based on each acquisitions circumstances. The activities listed may or may not be required based

on each individual acquisitions circumstances so teams should modify activities as required. It

also allows teams to delete unnecessary steps or further break down activities into smaller tasks

for scheduling and tracking.

This tool is meant as a starting point to guide teams, who are encouraged to tailor the baseline

process workflow to support their acquisition. Teams should consider specific program

parameters and project an acquisition schedule based on those parameters. Some things to

consider when developing an acquisition schedule include:

- If the order is in strict compliance with basic IDIQ or not (NOTE: a CO should

understand whether or not the order is in strict compliance with the basic IDIQ

because the timeline may be impacted)

- If the CO is the FODA

- Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) structure

- Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) vs tradeoff evaluation methodology

used

- Number of major technical evaluation areas and/or measures of merit

- Number of anticipated proposals

- If a Draft FOPR is utilized

- Expectation for Interchanges

XXXX

Acquisition

Team

Duration

WBS

Task Name

OPR

Start

Finish

1.1.1

Official Requirement Received

User

2-Jan-17

Notes: User/Requirements Owner provides a clear, concise, and well-written requirement. For operational

contracting, examples could include requirements package, funding documents or functional planning email/meeting.

In the systems arena, examples include Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM), Initial Capabilities Document

(ICD) or Capability Development Document (CDD).

1.1.2

Develop Acquisition Strategy

Acq Team

2-Jan-17

Notes: Consider Market Research (MR) necessary and all viable acquisition alternatives to satisfying the

requirements.

1.1.3

Perform Market Research (MR)

Acq Team

2-Jan-17

FAR 10.002 (B) (1) states the CO may use Market Research (MR) conducted within 18 months before the award of

any TO/DO if the information is still current, accurate, and relevant.

1.1.4

Generate and Approve MR Report

PM/CO

2-Jan-17

Notes: PM and CO sign the report. See Template B: Market Research Report

1.1.5

Streamlined Acquisition Strategy Summary (SASS)

PM/CO

2-Jan-17

See the Air Force Contracting Central website, AFFARS 5307 for the SASS template,

1.1.5.a

Develop Acquisition Plan

2-Jan-17

Notes: Develop a written Acquisition Plan (AP) IAW AFFARS 5307.104-92.

1.1.5.b

Acquisition Plan Approved

MDA/SDO

2-Jan-17

1.1.6

Small Business Coordination (DD2579)

SBA/CO

2-Jan-17

Notes: Includes coordination/approval with Small Business.

1.1.6.1

Critical Decision Point (CDP) 1 MIRT

MIRT

2-Jan-17

See Appendix E: MIRTs

1.2.1

Develop Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR)

Acq Team

2-Jan-17

Notes: Any unique terms, conditions, requirements, and/or attachments must be developed before this activity is

complete. This activity accounts for a large amount of tailoring for the order requirements from the MAC IDIQ

requirements. Examples include Statement of Work (SOW), Systems Requirements Document (SRD), Performance

Work Statement (PWS), Contract Data Requirements List (CDRLs), and the evaluation criteria and instructions to the

offerors.

XXXX

Acquisition

Team

Duration

WBS

Task Name

OPR

Start

Finish

1.2.2

Engage with IDIQ contract holders

Acq Team

2-Jan-17

Notes: Obtain feedback on the FOPR from IDIQ contract holders.

1.2.3

Requirements Package Complete

Acq Team

2-Jan-17

1.2.4

Finalize the Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR)

2-Jan-17

Notes: All the terms and conditions of the FOPR finalized (to include evaluation criteria and instructions to the

offerors). See Appendix B, Evaluation Criteria.

1.2.4.a

CDP 2 MIRT

MIRT

2-Jan-17

1.2.5

Legal Review

Legal

2-Jan-17

Notes: Engagement with legal before this activity is recommended in order to shorten the attorney review time.

CO responds to all comments and documents the file accordingly.

1.2.6

Policy Review

Policy

2-Jan-17

Notes: CO provides access to all contract files to Clearance Reviewer. CO responds to all comments and

documents the file accordingly.

1.2.7

Business Clearance

Policy

2-Jan-17

Notes: Obtain Business Clearance approval to release Formal FOPR. See Appendix F, Business/Contract

Clearance.

1.2.8

Release Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR)

2-Jan-17

1.3.1

Develop Proposals

Offerors

2-Jan-17

1.3.1.a

Develop Fair Opportunity Selection Plan (FOSP)

Acq Team

2-Jan-17

See Appendix C: Fair Opportunity Selection Plan (FOSP).

1.3.2

Receive Proposals

2-Jan-17

Notes: The CO conducts a "quick look" of the proposals to ensure all parts of the proposals were received and that

the offeror’s have complied with the administrative instructions in the FOPR.

1.3.3

Evaluation and Write Interchange Notices (INs)

Acq Team

2-Jan-17

Notes: As the team evaluates each offeror, document any INs that may be necessary. A good practice is to have

Legal review INs prior to release. See Appendix H: Interchanges.

XXXX

Acquisition

Team

Duration

WBS

Task Name

OPR

Start

Finish

1.3.3.a

Brief FODA for Preliminary Decision

Acq Team

2-Jan-17

Notes: Used when FODA is not CO. The FODA decides whether to release INs, or to proceed to contract

clearance and then contract award. This task may involve developing charts, briefing, and incorporating any

comments. Ensure that legal reviews any charts prior to the brief.

1.3.4

Release INs to Qualified Offerors

2-Jan-17

Ensure the interchanges direct the offeror(s) to submit change pages to proposals to ensure no further revisions are

necessary. Also, any change pages would be in addition to any IN narrative response. A team may also employ

oral interchanges as discussed in Appendix G, Oral Proposals and Oral Interchanges, or employ automation

techniques as described in Appendix A, Automation.

1.3.5

Offerors respond to Interchanges

Offeror(s)

2-Jan-17

1.3.6

Evaluate Interchange Responses

Acq Team

2-Jan-17

See Appendix I, Evaluation Documentation Requirements.

1.3.7

Finalize Evaluation Results

2-Jan-17

1.3.8

Decision Document Drafted

Acq Team

2-Jan-17

Notes: As outlined in Appendix I: Evaluation Documentation Requirements, the evaluation may be wholly

documented in the FODD. However, choose a method of documentation that is appropriate for the complexity of

the acquisition. Good practice is to consult with legal on the intended level of detail in this document.

1.3.8.a

CDP 5 MIRT

MIRT

2-Jan-17

1.3.9

Legal Review

Legal

2-Jan-17

1.3.10

Policy Review

Policy

2-Jan-17

1.3.11

Contract Clearance Approval

Policy

2-Jan-17

Notes: See Appendix C: Business/Contract Clearance.

1.3.11.a

Brief FODA (if CO is not FODA)

Acq Team

2-Jan-17

Notes: The FODA decides who is selected for the order. This task may involve developing charts, briefing, and

incorporating any comments. The FODA, however, may allow the team to utilize the FODD or other evaluation

documentation to brief the specifics of the evaluation. This may be accomplished as long as the contract file

documents this methodology. Ensure that legal reviews any materials prior to the brief.

1.3.12

FODA signs Decision Document

FODA

2-Jan-17

1.4.1

CO Signs Order

2-Jan-17

1.4.2

CO Notifies Offerors

2-Jan-17

Notes: CO notifies Offerors of the selection and may offer a schedule for debriefings. IAW FAR 16.505(b)(6),

notification of and debriefings for orders are only required above $5.5M.

1.4.3

CO Awards Order

2-Jan-17

Notes: CO posts award in all necessary locations (contract writing system, Electronic Data Access (EDA), etc)

Appendix A, Automation

Description: This streamlining opportunity includes countless automation processes that cannot

be exhaustively listed here. However, some possibilities include the following:

- Cost/Price templates

- Information gathering templates (such as electronic forms)

- Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) postings

- Electronic File Exchange (such as the DoD SAFE website)

- Use of macros to automate any redundant activity (eg. Form letters, manual data entry

throughout Government cost analysis)

- Interactive web-conferencing for non-sensitive Interchanges (e.g., using Skype for pre-

proposal conferences)

- Discussion/chat forums for high-volume communication

- Create a FedBizOps page exclusively for the MAC IDIQ holders (establishes a

centralized location to communicate with industry)

Impact:

- Stipulating electronic templates in the FOPR instructs Offerors to propose similarly-

packaged data. This allows the fair opportunity team to focus on the evaluation as

opposed to understanding unique Offeror formats used to propose.

- Interaction with Offerors increases the communication of industry and Government, as

well as expedites the sharing of information.

- There may also be proposal cost savings when leveraging electronic proposal documents.

- Any one of these automation techniques may shorten acquisition timelines.

Automated procedures can never be used in place of a documented, reasoned basis for a selection

decision. The General Accountability Office has repeatedly sustained protests, in various

contexts, where agencies rely upon mechanical processes in lieu of agency judgment. See:

- EFW, Inc., B-412608, Apr. 7, 2016 (protest challenging the agency's past performance

evaluation sustained where the evaluation mechanically relied on a crosswalk table that

obscured differences between the proposals, and failed to look beyond overall adjectival

ratings in concluding that the Offeror's past performance was equivalent);

- Midland Supply, Inc., B-298720, B-298720.2, Nov. 29, 2006, 2007 CPD ¶ 2 (award

decision not reasonable where there is no documentation or explanation and agency made

its award decision based strictly on a mechanical comparison of the Offerors' total point

scores);

- The Jonathan Corp.; Metro Mach. Corp., B-251698, May 17, 1993, 93-2 CPD ¶ 174

(sustaining protest where agency’s cost realism evaluation failed to consider each

Offeror’s individualized technical approach and instead mechanically adjusted proposed

labor hours and material costs to government estimates);

- Tele-Consultants, Inc., B-408465, Sep. 27, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 304 at 10 (“[a]s our

decisions make clear, overly mechanical analyses or those based on mathematical

computations of scores are disfavored”).

References: FAR 16.505(b)(1)(ii)

Appendix B, Evaluation Criteria

Description: Information the Government requests Offerors to submit with proposals should be

the minimum necessary to verify Offerors’ understanding of the requirement and to enable the

Government to determine which Offeror should be awarded the order (also see Appendix D). It

is a good practice to limit evaluation criteria to no more than three key discriminators to allow

the Government the ability to discern the best value offer in a timely manner. Cost/Price shall

always be considered, and some examples of additional evaluation criteria include technical

capability, past performance (in limited acquisitions), TO/DO staff management, and/or risk.

Government fair opportunity teams may not need to identify evaluation criteria for TO/DO

competitions that are conducted under MAC IDIQs with pre-priced supplies/services. Best

Practice: Conduct periodic reviews of order competitions conducted under a MAC IDIQ to

analyze whether or not the chosen evaluation criteria effectively evaluated key discriminators.

Methodologies that may be applied to an acquisition’s evaluation:

- Gate criteria: Any criteria that can result in a simple “pass/fail” evaluation for reducing

the number of potential awardees should be utilized. Examples include minimum

commercial/industry certifications, licenses, and approvals on a state, federal, or

international level. Cautionary note: If applying gate criteria to small business set-aside

acquisitions, “unacceptable” findings may equate to non-responsibility determinations

which must be referred to the Small Business Administration (SBA) for Certificate of

Competency (CoC) issuance.

- Past performance: Consider limiting past performance to contractor performance within

the basic IDIQ (see FAR 16.505, “The contracting officer should consider the following

when developing the procedures: Past performance on earlier orders under the contract,

including quality, timeliness and cost control.”) Past performance outside of the IDIQ

was most likely already evaluated for award of the basic MAC IDIQ contracts—it would

be duplicative to consider it again for each order competition conducted against the basic

IDIQ. Note: FAR 16.505(b)(1)(v)(A)(1) does not require the Government to evaluate

past performance, nor is there a requirement for the Government to document its rationale

not to do so.

- Multi-phase/Multi-step evaluation process: If anticipating a large number of responses

from a FOPR, it might be useful to utilize a multi-phase or multistep approach. As long

as the FOPR clearly describes the down-select criteria (or prescribed in the basic IDIQ),

the process of narrowing the field may be done by requesting Offerors to submit an initial

“white paper” for evaluation to ensure that the Offerors understand the requirement. A

more extensive proposal may be requested from a smaller pool of offerors in a

subsequent phase (phase II). Be clear, unambiguous, and transparent in the process when

requesting proposals.

- Streamlined evaluation methodology: There is no requirement in FAR 16.5 to capture

the relative strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses and significant weaknesses supporting the

evaluation of the proposals. This means that a streamlined evaluation methodology, such

as plusses and minuses (+ & -), narrative statements, acceptable/unacceptable or pass/fail

designations can be used. Note: FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iv) requires the Government to

disclose significant factors and subfactors, including cost or price, that the agency will

use in evaluating responses and their relative importance on orders greater than $5.5M.

- A study by the Naval Post-graduate School (NPS) revealed two findings that are

significant: 1) tradeoff source selections result in a 63% longer procurement time than

LPTA source selections, and 2) each additional evaluation factor increases procurement

time by 38%.

- Immediate Comparison: Immediate comparison of responses received is allowed without

having to “independently score” them. It requires documentation of the differences under

each evaluation factor but without having to use a scoring system, such as colors,

adjectives, or points. Rather, the evaluators collect and document facts about each

response, which allows them to quickly determine who is best suited and with whom to

place the order. There is no need to first rate each Offeror independently against the

evaluation factors before making a comparison, so long as the stated evaluation factors

are used as the basis for selecting among Offerors.

- Pre-priced supplies: Under MAC IDIQ contracts for COTS products, especially products

for IT, prices are typically set forth in price sheets and are often available electronically

on bulletin boards for customers to select the products that best satisfy their needs and

take advantage of the competitive forces of the marketplace. As long as the CO or

customer can easily compare the various prices and products being offered under these

contracts, awardees have been given a fair opportunity to be considered. Requiring each

awardee to develop a separate "proposal" or conducting negotiations with each awardee

prior to awarding a DO is not necessary, unless the CO believes the information provided

on the price sheets is insufficient to make an award in the best interest of the Government

(see FAR 16.505(b)). In the case of MAC IDIQ contracts for services, the receipt and

evaluation of proposals typically is necessary to better understand and define the services

being procured and to take advantage of competition amongst the awardees to obtain best

value. Agencies, however, should simplify and streamline the negotiation process as

much as possible. The use of sealed bidding as described in FAR part 14 is also an

acceptable approach when pre-priced supplies exist (Harris IT Services Corp., B-411699,

Oct. 2, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 293 at 9).

- Be aware of FAR 16.505(b)(2)(F). In accordance with section 1331 of Public Law 111-

240 (15 U.S.C. 644(r)), COs may, at their discretion, set aside orders for any of the small

business concerns identified in 19.000(a)(3). When setting aside orders for small

business concerns, the specific small business program eligibility requirements identified

in part 19 apply. Coordinate this with Small Business. There needs to be sufficient small

business multiple award contract holders in the applicable socioeconomic category who,

through market research, provide a reasonable expectation that offers will be obtained

from at least two sources who can meet the acquisition requirements.

Impact: Acquisition timelines may be reduced with employment of any of the methodologies

outlined above. They are, however, not without risk. Some of the methodologies have not been

contested and therefore decided-upon by the GAO. Using the FAR 16.5 lexicon established in

these guiding principles will mitigate the risk of a successful protest on these methodologies.

References: “Streamlining Task and Delivery Order Solicitations under MA/IDIQ Contracts,”

ASI Government Advisory, May 2016; Naval Postgraduate School study.

Appendix C, Fair Opportunity Selection Plan (FOSP)

Description: In general, a formal evaluation plan is not required per FAR 16.505(b)(1)(v)(B).

However, if the FODA is not the CO, then it is a good practice to accomplish a FOSP. This plan

would include information such as:

- Background and acquisition approach (a copy/paste of Acquisition Plan);

- Fair Opportunity Team Structure (to include any non-Government personnel);

- How to conduct Interchanges;

- Any unique methodologies to be employed during the evaluation that are not expressly

outlined in the FOPR;

- How the Government will protect source selection information (IAW FAR 2.101 and

3.104);

- How the evaluation will be conducted and documented (i.e., oral presentations);

- A schedule of the major events to get to order award; and/or

- Attach copies of the evaluation criteria and the instructions to Offerors.

Impact: Having a plan encourages dialogue between the FODA and the acquisition team to

ensure expectations are understood resulting in a more streamlined evaluation. In addition, the

FOSP will provide guidance to the fair opportunity team when communicating the evaluation

results to the FODA.

References: FAR 16.505(b)(1)(ii); FAR 16.505(b)(7)(i)

Appendix D, Page Limitations

Description: Limit the number of pages offerors can provide when proposing. This challenges

Offerors to write efficiently but, is also consistent with the Government asking for only the

minimum information necessary to discern the best value Offeror. The FOPR instructions

dictate the number of pages by evaluation criteria or section, or subfactor or factor. If

Interchanges with Offerors are held, Offerors may be directed to limit change pages or response

pages to INs. When determining page limitations, consider:

- Was any area of the evaluation assessed on the basic IDIQ or on a previous order?

- Are standard position descriptions dictated?

- Is a standard PWS applicable?

- How frequently are orders issued?

- Is the acquisition a commercial product or service?

- How well-defined is the requirement?

Impact: Limiting pages of the proposal or limiting the Interchanges can substantially reduce the

amount of information received, allowing the Government to expedite evaluations. However,

unreasonably short page limitations may result in prolonged exchanges if the offeror does not

have space to provide the requisite information.

Appendix E, Multi-Functional Independent Review Teams (MIRTs)

Description: IAW AFFARS 5301.9001(b), “the CAA must ensure that the clearance process

meets the objectives in paragraph (a) above. See AF PGI 5301.9001(b) for guidance on the use

of multi-functional independent review teams (MIRTS) in conjunction with competitive

acquisitions.” The use of MIRTs is not mandatory, but the following information is provided as

guidance if the CAA determines the use of a MIRT is necessary.

MIRT reviews are linked to FAR 15.3 decision points which may or may not be relevant to FAR

16.5 procedures. Where not relevant (Critical Decision Points (CDP), CDP#3 and #4), MIRT

reviews should not be utilized. Further, CDP#s 1, 2, and 5 may apply but can be tailored for

FAR 16.5 procedures for the same reasons as for FAR 15.3 processes.

MIRT CDPs 1 – 5 may apply under FAR 16.5 as follows:

CDP #1—Review draft Acquisition Strategy Panel (ASP) brief or draft Acquisition Plan (AP)

(Includes review of requirements documents, results of market research and risk assessment, and

incentive structure, as applicable).

CDP #2 – Review FOPR. (Includes review of Source Selection Plan as applicable, requirements

documents, and FOPR attachments, as necessary, to ensure executable evaluation criteria.)

CDP #3 – Review draft Initial Evaluation/Competitive Range Brief or review of draft Award

without Discussions Brief. An initial evaluation brief and/or “competitive range” is not required

to be made under FAR 16.5. If not conducted, CDP #3 should not be utilized. Acquisition teams

must be careful to not use terminology or specific processes from FAR 15.3 unintentionally,

which would trigger a MIRT review for CDP #3. If there are questions regarding

applicability/requirement to conduct CDP #3, consult the CAA.

CDP #4 – ELIMINATED: A “FPR” is not required. Acquisition teams must be careful to not

use terminology or specific processes from FAR 15.3 unintentionally, which would trigger a

requirement to apply a MIRT review for CDP #4.

CDP #5 – Review draft FODD.

Impact: If the CAA requires a MIRT, tailor the process to reflect the FAR 16.505 streamlined

process. This will save time with no degradation of performance/quality of documentation. A

good practice would be for CAAs to establish standing MIRT memberships for MAC IDIQs to

ensure timely, consistent reviews by panel members familiar with the fair opportunity processes

for the IDIQ.

Appendix F, Business/Contract Clearance

Description: IAW AFFARS 5301.9000(b)(6), competitive order solicitations and orders issued in

accordance with FAR 8.4, 13, or 16.5 and against existing MAC ID/IQ, GWACs, and FSS

contracts in accordance with the terms and conditions and ordering procedures of the basic

contract are excluded from business or contract clearance. If the TO/DO is not in accordance

with the terms and conditions and ordering procedures of the basic contract, then

business/contract clearance would be required.

In order for Clearance not to apply, to the greatest extent possible, include terms and conditions

including pre-established factors and/or evaluation criteria in the Ordering Provisions of the

basic contract. Ordering Clauses at DFARS 252.216-7006 (replaces FAR 52.216-18) and FAR

52.216-19 or FAR 52.212-1 and/or -2 may be augmented with an attachment of Ordering

Provisions to the contract describing procedures, evaluation criteria, and evaluation factors for

TO/DO award.

Acquisition teams must be careful not to use terminology or specific processes from FAR 15.3

unintentionally. Use of FAR 15.3 terms/process such as competitive range, discussions and

Final Proposal Revisions, could cause FAR 15.3 procedures to apply and contract clearance

requirements prior to requesting final proposal revisions.

Tailor existing templates for Business Clearance and Contract Clearance for Orders against an

existing MAC IDIQ.

Appendix G, Oral Proposals (OPs) and Oral Interchanges (OIs)

Description: Under appropriate circumstances, OPs can be an effective method to improve the

Government’s evaluation of Offerors' proposed approaches and may reduce acquisition cycle

time. OPs as a substitute for portions of a proposal can be effective in streamlining the selection

process, and may occur at any time in the acquisition process. OPs provide an opportunity for

dialogue among the parties. Pre-recorded videotaped presentations that lack real-time interactive

dialogue are not considered OPs although they may be included in Offeror submissions, when

appropriate. The acquisition team must ensure the use of OPs is appropriate for the situation,

accurately documented, well designed, and executed with discipline.

(1) OPs: Offeror provides some or all of the proposal via a verbal presentation. The Government

may ask questions during the presentation or withhold until a later time. OPs are typically used

to address only technical factors (ability to meet requirements or approach to mitigate risks).

OPs are beneficial when:

- There are only a few number of technical requirements;

- The technical requirements (and Offeror’s solutions thereto) are best understood

through exchange of ideas with Offeror;

- A variety of technical approaches is expected or the requirement is for services

incidental to commercial supply (i.e., management of subcontractors or suppliers)

The following should ordinarily be submitted in writing: 1) cost/price proposals, 2) past

performance, and 3) supply item technical information.

The presentation can be live or recorded, but if live, video should be used to capture the

presentation. Recommend the Government provide Offerors with an equal amount of time to

present OPs to ensure all Offerors have an equal opportunity to compete. Official documentation

can be the video recording and briefing charts used by Offeror, with or without added

informational documentation (summarized technical proposal, technical manuals, technical

specification documentation, etc.). Avoid allowing the OP session to become a marketing

session by limiting the time allowed to present, number of slides, and/or number of presenters.

Lastly, encourage pre-submission of the written materials.

(2) OIs: The Government and the Offeror address aspects of the proposal in bilateral talks. OIs

take the place of a written response to INs as discussed in Appendix H to this document; and are

based on Government INs. OIs may be conducted in person or via telecom; those present from

the Government should be all persons needed to explain what the Government questions intend

or mean, and from the Offeror should be all persons needed to completely answer the

Government’s questions in the OI event (the technical/financial/management experts for the

subjects covered by INs). Government INs must be written and provided prior to OI event. To

document OIs, have Offerors respond to INs submitting change pages to written proposal

information (i.e., written proposal change pages or briefing material for oral proposal).

PROS:

• By requiring Offerors’ “key personnel” to brief, Government may obtain better insight

into quality of Offerors’ and major subcontractors’ key personnel.

o Presentations are best from Offerors’ actual team members instead of professional

proposal writers.

o Demonstrates how well key personnel understand what company proposes.

o Free flow of information from key personnel to evaluators gets both sides to a

“meeting of the minds” much faster and with more depth and replaces long

distance interpretation of a written proposal.

o Offeror must understand the presentation is not a marketing session.

• Being conducted at Offerors’ locations can improve understanding of the Offerors

capability, but site visits may also be conducted with written proposals. If travel funds

are not available, presentations can be made via VTC and/or face to face.

o Q&A periods allow better assessment of Offerors’ technical/managerial skills and

permit Offerors to make on-the-spot proposal correction/clarifications possibly

reducing the number of INs and schedule.

CONS:

• Oral presentations require experienced team members to tailor a selection approach to the

unique circumstances of the acquisition.

o It takes creativity; there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach.

o Number of presentations expected can influence decision whether or not to use

oral presentations.

▪ An excess number of Offerors could quickly eliminate potential time

savings anticipated.

o “Logistics considerations” can influence decision whether or not to use oral

presentations.

▪ Best when all evaluators attend all oral presentations for all Offerors but,

people get sick, houses flood, things happen so always have a plan.

▪ If it’s a large selection team, may consider audio/videotaping the

presentations so any absentee can view the material later

▪ Information protection and other constraining factors may be problematic

for classified programs.

• Oral presentations require a highly disciplined Government team.

o All evaluators/advisors must understand that the CO is IN CHARGE and has the

authority to convey to any person on the team to be silent, leave the room, etc.

regardless of the member’s grade/rank or place in the chain of command.

▪ Note: The entire team should be well prepped on who is in charge of

communication and how to behave before the Offerors arrive, including

understanding that they are not to nod vigorously, gesture, roll eyes, etc.

during a presentation.

o Ensure all interactions flow through the CO; there should be no “hallway

conversations”.

o Ensure equal treatment of Offerors (presentation times, EN response times,

conduct of Q&A periods).

o Avoid misleading Offerors during Q&As.

• Evaluators must be careful about “form over substance”. A flashy Offeror presentation

(e.g. a great presenter) may mask weak proposal content.

• Costs may be greater in preparing for oral presentations.

• Higher costs may discourage small business participation.

• Travel is required with face-to-face OPs.

• OPs may actually increase evaluation time if they are used to simply restate written

presentations because both formats must be evaluated, there may be inconsistencies

between the two.

• Oral presentations don’t lend themselves to complex evaluation schemes

o A great number of and/or very detailed evaluation factors and subfactors can

make oral proposal process unwieldy.

o Complexity increases contractor preparation and evaluator participation time.

Impact: OPs and OIs allow the evaluators to verbally interchange with the Offeror to better

understand what is being proposed. This should expedite the evaluation of the written materials,

reduce the number of follow-on Interchanges, and may lessen the need for very detailed

documentation of technical proposal evaluation. Summarized notes from the oral events should

suffice to capture the most important aspects of the presentations. Details must still support the

basis for final ratings, but in a less formal structure than a written proposal or traditional written

evaluation.

It is critical that the agency document how it resolved its concerns with each Offeror’s proposals

during OIs. See Exelis Systems Corp., B-407111, Nov. 13, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 340 at 9-10

(protest sustained in part where record demonstrated agency concern over awardee’s staffing

levels, agency asked questions to awardee during oral presentations, but failed to document how

awardee’s response resolved agency concerns).

It is important to note that OPs may turn into Interchanges (discussions), triggering the

requirement that the Interchanges be reasonable and fair between Offerors. See CSC, et. al., B-

298494.2, May 10, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 103; Global Analytic Info. Tech. Servs., Inc., B-298840.2,

Feb. 6, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 57 (exchanges at an Offeror's oral presentation that allowed the

Offeror to materially revise its price proposal were discussions, despite the FOPRs statement that

oral presentations would not constitute discussions).

Appendix H, Interchanges

Description:

The FAR 16.505 ordering process is guided by the principles of flexibility and fair opportunity.

Task and delivery order competitions are limited to IDIQ contract holders (“Offerors”) whose

proposals for the base IDIQ contract have already been evaluated. Therefore, the ordering

process does not use the competition requirements under FAR part 6, or the administrative

requirements of negotiated procurements under FAR subpart 15.3. Nevertheless, the ordering

process must afford all Offerors a fair opportunity to be considered for each order.

Interchanges Defined

The USAF has established Interchanges to facilitate the flexible — and fair — FAR 16.505

ordering process.

• Interchanges are the fluid exchange of information between the Contracting Officer and

Offerors during the ordering process.

• Interchanges may address any aspect of the proposal: technical, cost/price, past performance,

contract documentation, and/or any matter in the evaluation process.

• Interchanges may be written as Interchange Notices (“INs”), which will accurately capture

the contemporaneous sharing of information between the USAF and the Offerors.

Interchanges may also be oral conversations between the USAF and the Offerors, but should

be accurately captured later in a finalized Interchange Record.

• Any proposal changes resulting from Interchanges should be included in the final evaluation

record, by change pages or included in the final awarded order.

• Interchanges do not require the administrative steps necessary under FAR subpart 15.3

negotiations. Therefore, when engaging in Interchanges with Offerors, the contracting officer

does not need to take steps such as 1) establishing and documenting a competitive range, or

2) getting contract clearance to request and review FPRs, or even request or review FPRs at

all. If conducted fairly, Interchanges provide for flexible, streamlined exchanges of

information with Offerors.

Principles of Interchanges

The contracting officer should consider the following principles when planning for and engaging

in Interchanges. These principles reflect FAR 16.505’s guidance for ensuring each Offeror has a

fair opportunity to be considered for the order, while reserving for the contracting officer the

discretion to streamline the ordering process.

Interchanges should reflect ordering procedures that provide each contractor a fair opportunity

to be considered for each order.

• Include Interchanges in Ordering Procedures: The contracting officer has the discretion to

employ different methods of Interchanges, as detailed above in the Definition, or choose not

to engage in Interchanges at all. Whatever method of Interchanges is selected, the ordering

procedures should detail whether USAF intends to engage in Interchanges, and how

Interchanges will be conducted.

• Interchanges Must Be Fair and Reasonable and Provide All Offerors a Fair Opportunity: If

Interchanges take place, the contracting officer should ensure, prior to order placement, that

Interchanges were 1) in accordance with the procedures in the FORP, and 2) afforded each

Offeror a fair opportunity to be considered for each order. Simply because the FORP permits

engaging in Interchanges with one offeror does not in itself establish fair opportunity where

the evaluation team engaged in interchanges with only one offeror. The contracting officer

should be sure that the Interchanges process, including which Offerors are afforded

Interchanges and the nature of the Interchanges, are fair and reasonable, not misleading or

incomplete, and afforded each Offeror a fair opportunity to be considered for the order.

• Document the Interchange Process: The decision to engage in Interchanges, with which

Offerors, and on what details of a proposal, should be documented. Specifically if USAF

engages in Interchanges with fewer than all Offerors, or exchanges more information with

certain contractors than others, the basis for doing so should be included in the evaluation

record, and should clarify how each Offeror was nevertheless afforded a fair opportunity to

be considered for the order.

The IDIQ and each relevant FORP should state the process by which USAF will conduct

Interchanges.

• Align Interchange Procedures in IDIQ and FOPR: When competing any order requirement,

the contracting officer should ensure the written Interchange procedures are consistent with

the process listed in the FOPR, and the ordering procedures in the IDIQ contract. This will

ensure that all IDIQ contractors were aware of the Interchange process at the time the IDIQ

contract was solicited, and again when they pursued the order in question.

Tailor the Interchanges procedures to each acquisition.

• Use Discretion in Tailoring Interchanges: A contracting officer has the discretion to tailor

ordering procedures based on the nature and complexity of the order. Interchanges should

reflect this tailoring. A less complex order may allow for streamlined procedures and a

limited need for Interchanges. A more complex order may require more involved procedures,

and more involved Interchanges seeking greater exchanges of information with Offerors. The

nature and extent of Interchanges should reflect the tailoring of procedures to the specific

order in question.

• Interchanges Should Support the Evaluation: Interchanges should support the evaluation

procedures that have been tailored to the acquisition. At the conclusion of Interchanges,

USAF should be able to identify those Offerors who have an acceptable and awardable

proposal, and those that are not acceptable or awardable, and why. If an order will be issued

based on a comparative evaluation of contractors’ proposals, the contracting officer should

ensure that the information exchanged during Interchanges supports such a comparative

evaluation.

Impact: Conducting Interchanges allows fair opportunity teams to eliminate certain activities

that would otherwise be required in a FAR 15.3 evaluation, such as:

- The Competitive Range Determination Document (CRDD)

- FPR Request Letter

- FPR

- Final Proposal Evaluations

- The Contract Clearance Event to release FPRs (to include review and approval)

- Legal Review of the FPR request

Product: Interchanges may be written as INs, which would accurately capture the

contemporaneous sharing of information between the Government and the Offerors.

Interchanges may also be oral conversations between the Government and the Offerors,

accurately captured later in a finalized Interchange Record. Any proposal changes resulting from

Interchanges should be included in the final evaluation record, by change pages or included in

the final awarded TO/DO.

Appendix I, Evaluation Documentation Requirements

Description:

Fair Opportunity evaluation documentation should show:

- Which Offerors proposed,

- What ratings were given to each Offeror (and why),

- What the price was for each Offeror,

- Which Offeror was selected,

- Any tradeoff analysis, and

- Whether the Offeror met the requirements. More specifically, the agency should

document the basis of its award decision, including the rationale for making the award

tradeoffs among price/non-price factors.

GAO case law encourages teams to reduce documentation of Fair Opportunity Evaluation

process (WBS 1.3) to minimal documentation required for a “reasonable award decision.”

Documentation may be accomplished in one long running record of evaluation (Journal

Approach), accomplished via checklists, or may be in discrete steps/phases. Minimal

documentation required is a FODD which includes initial and final evaluation results (when

Interchanges are used). The CO has discretion to separately document the evaluation results

from the FODD. Documentation may be generated by consensus or with tie-breaker vote. All

remaining dissenting opinions must be captured in a Memorandum for Record (MFR). The three

documentation approaches mentioned above (although not all inclusive) are outlined in more

detail below:

1) Journal Approach: CO and team members (at Factor Chief level) literally keep a journal of

daily efforts of the team, in the course of the evaluation, right up to the Fair Opportunity

selection decision. Bite size pieces of information may be easier to capture and a

contemporaneous record is being built, which is preferred by GAO. However, a journal may not

easily provide the “big picture” of the Offerors’ proposal elements because it looks at a daily

evaluation completed and may contain conflicting opinions as working paper documentation

rather than decision points.

This approach contains an evidentiary weakness in a subsequent protest at the GAO. Teams may

have to turn over deliberative, non-final draft evaluation documentation that would not otherwise

be provided to a protester if the final evaluation findings are not segregated from the daily

journal entries. This could lead to the team having to address supplemental protest arguments it

would not otherwise have to address.

2) Checklist Approach: The CO and Fair Opportunity team members (at Factor Chief level)

develop Factor checklists to use while evaluating offers, annotating “√” or “X” with comments

describing specific language from proposal relied upon. The checklist approach provides for

uniformity of evaluation results that is easily combined from multiple evaluators. It also avoids

the narrative form of evaluation documentation. However, ensuring the checklist item is tied to a

meaningful discriminator and capturing complex technical requirements or subjective analysis

may be difficult. In addition, as evaluation progresses, evaluators may limit thought process or

fail to provide a way to capture unanticipated proposal offerings.

3) Decision Step Approach: The CO or Factor Chief separately document by MFRs at minimum

documentation decision points: (A) proposals received on time; (B) individual Offeror’s

evaluation against evaluation criteria; (C) decision to hold Interchanges with one, some, none or

all Offerors; (D) analysis of individual Offeror’s responses to INs; (E) final award decision with

explanation for awardee, compared to other Offerors if a tradeoff approach is used. Using the

Decision Step approach allows for brevity and simplicity of the narrative. Each step may be

headed up by a different person, allowing for process documentation to be distributed among the

team for faster, concurrent documentation. Also, the final award decision is less cluttered (no

potential for working paper documentation) and refers to other documentation of decision steps.

However, documentation by individual steps can seem disjointed as a whole, especially if written

by more than one author. In addition, the FODD may need to be expansively written since the

other decision step documents are not part of the FODD.

Impact: Minimal documentation of TO/DO competition process saves process time, and may

lessen protest risk due to over complicated documentation creating conflicting information in the

file.

References: Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems, Inc., B-408134.3, Jul. 3, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶

169 (“agency's business judgments must be adequately documented, including the rationale for

any cost/technical tradeoffs made and the benefits associated with the additional costs”). FAR

16.505 (b), especially (7)(i) and (ii) requires minimal documentation formality. With respect to

records retention in the context of a GAO protest, an agency, "bears the risk that there may not

be adequate supporting rationale in the record for us to conclude that the agency had a reasonable

basis for its source selection decision." Navistar Def., LLC; BAE Sys., Tactical Vehicle Sys. LP,

B-401865 et al., Dec. 14, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 258 at 13. However, there is no explicit

requirement to keep drafts and lower level evaluator documents in order to demonstrate the

reasonableness of the evaluation. "The destruction of individual evaluator documents, however,

does not render an agency’s evaluation unreasonable per se; rather, we will consider the record

adequate if the consensus documents and source selection decision sufficiently document the

agency’s rationale for the evaluations." Joint Mgmt. and Tech. Servs., B-294229, Sept. 22, 2004,

2004 CPD ¶ 208 at 3-4.

Appendix J, GLOSSARY OF TERMS

The recommended FAR 16.5 lexicon provided below is provided as an alternative to the traditional terms that

are normally associated with the formal Source Selection Process as called out in FAR 15.3 and the DoD

Source Selection Procedures. These terms are offered as guidance and in no way impinge upon the

Contracting Officer's broad discretion in developing appropriate order placement procedures set forth in FAR

Part 16.505(b)(1)(ii). More important than using a certain term is NOT citing specific FAR Part 15.3

provisions or references.

Recommend acquisitions utilizing unique lexicon include a glossary and definition table within the FOPR.

Similar DoD

Mandatory Source

Selection Procedures

or FAR 15.3 Term

Recommended

FAR 16.5 Term

Definition

Award Without

Discussions

Selection Without

Interchanges

To award an order on the basis of the initial

proposals received without conducting

Interchanges.

Best Value Continuum

Best Value

Continuum

Range of processes that may be used to

obtain best value in a competitive

environment through use of one or a

combination of selection/tradeoff approaches.

Best Value

Expected outcome of an acquisition that, in

the Government’s estimation, provides the

greatest overall benefit in response to the

requirement.

Clarifications

Interchanges

Fluid exchange of information between the

Contracting Officer and the Offerors that

may address any aspect of the proposal and

may or may not be documented in real time.

May be conducted with all, some, or none of

the Offerors if determined to be part of the

fair opportunity process.

Communications

Interchanges

Discussions/Interactions

Interchanges

Evaluation Factors and

Subfactors

Evaluation Factors

and Subfactors

Discriminators upon which an Offerors

proposal will be evaluated, set forth in the

Fair Opportunity Proposal Request

communicating how requirements will be

evaluated, and be the primary determinant of

the detailed information requested in the

proposal request.

Evaluation Notice (EN)

Interchange Notice

(IN)

The CO's written notification to the Offeror

for the purposes of making clear certain

aspects of their proposal, to resolve minor or

clerical mistakes, or in support of

Interchanges.

Evaluation

Ratings/Description

Evaluation

Ratings/Description

Self-explanatory

Similar DoD

Mandatory Source

Selection Procedures

or FAR 15.3 Term

Recommended

FAR 16.5 Term

Definition

Initial Evaluation

The initial round of evaluations. Based upon

review of the initial evaluation results, the

Decision Authority will decide to either (1)

approve award without Interchanges, or (2)

enter into Interchanges.

Lowest Price

Technically Acceptable

(LPTA)

Lowest Price

Technically

Acceptable

(LPTA)

Selection process where the best value is

expected to result from selection of the

technically acceptable proposal with the

lowest evaluated price.

Past Performance

Offeror's or contractor's performance on a

contract.

Performance

Confidence Assessment

Past Performance

Evaluation/Results

Evaluation of an Offeror's past performance

assessing the Offeror's ability to supply

products/supplies to meet the Government's

requirements.

Preproposal Conference

– Presubmission

Conference

Preproposal

Conference -

Presubmission

Conference

Tool for collecting information and feedback

on the Government's acquisition

requirements and approach.

Proposal – Task Order

Submission,

Submission

Proposal

Response to a Fair Opportunity Proposal

Request outlining the submitter's offer to

meet the Government's requirements.

Quality

Assessed in a Fair Opportunity selection

through consideration of one or more non-

cost evaluation factors such as past

performance, compliance with solicitation

requirements, technical, management

capability, personnel qualifications or prior

experience.

Recency

Pertains to past performance. Measure of the

time that has elapsed since the past

performance reference occurred. Generally

expressed as a time period during which past

performance references are considered

relevant.

Relative Importance of

Factors

Relative

Importance of

Factors

Used in the tradeoff process under a Fair

Opportunity Selection to identify the

weighting of criteria

Similar DoD

Mandatory Source

Selection Procedures

or FAR 15.3 Term

Recommended

FAR 16.5 Term

Definition

Relevancy

Pertains to past performance. Measure of the

extent of similarity between the

service/support, complexity, value, contract

type, and subcontract/teaming or other

comparable attributes of past performance

and the solicitation requirements; and a

measure of the likelihood past performance is

an indicator of future performance.

Request for Proposal

(RFP)

Fair Opportunity

Proposal Request

(FOPR)

Product provided to the multiple award

contract holders requesting a proposal and

including information on how to prepare the

proposal, the evaluation criteria and any

order specific terms and conditions.

Requirements

Documents

Requirements

Documents

All aspects of the FOPR that convey the

needs of the Government to Offerors,

including the SOO/SOW/PWS, technical

requirement documents and system

requirement documents.

Requirements Owner

Requirements

Owner

Entity (office, function, agency) that has the

requirement for an acquisition and is

responsible for providing requirements

documents communicating the requirements

in the Fair Opportunity Proposal Request.

Risk

Potential for unsuccessful contract

performance.

Source Selection

Fair Opportunity

Selection

Process used to award a fair opportunity

order including events from requirement

identification through order award

Source Selection

Authority (SSA)

Fair Opportunity

Decision Authority

(FODA)

Person responsible for making the Fair

Opportunity Decision

Source Selection

Decision Document

(SSDD)

Fair Opportunity

Decision

Document

(FODD)

Written record documenting the Fair

Opportunity Decision and award.

Source Selection

Information

Source Selection

Information

Information, as outlined in FAR 2.101, that is

prepared for use by an agency for the purpose

of evaluating a proposal to enter into an

agency procurement order, if that information

has not been previously made available to the

public or disclosed publicly.

Similar DoD

Mandatory Source

Selection Procedures

or FAR 15.3 Term

Recommended

FAR 16.5 Term

Definition

Source Selection Plan

(SSP)

Fair Opportunity

Selection Plan

Formal plan encouraging dialogue between

the Decision Authority (when not the CO) and

the acquisition team to ensure selection

processes and expectations are understood.

Source Selection Team

(SST)

Fair Opportunity

Team

All members of the team involved with

making a Fair Opportunity selection and

award.

Technical

Factor in Fair Opportunity Selection to assess

the Offeror's proposed approach to satisfy the

Government's requirements.

Technical Risk

Assesses the degree to which the Offeror's

proposed technical approach may cause

disruption of schedule, increased costs,

degradation of performance, the need for

increased Government oversight, or increased

likelihood of unsuccessful contract

performance.

Subjective Tradeoff

Tradeoff

Use of subjective tradeoff evaluation factors

to make a fair opportunity selection to the

Offeror representing the best value to the

Government.

Fair Opportunity

Each MAC awardee must be provided a fair

opportunity to be considered for each order

exceeding $3,500; see FAR 16.505(b)(2) for

exceptions

Appendix K, Notification of Offerors

Description: How to handle preaward notification to offerors. FAR 16.505 sets no requirement

for preaward notification to offerors. However, there may be instances where preaward

notification(s) makes sense--such as when the evaluation reaches a point that a given proposal

will no longer be evaluated.

Rationale: Notification promotes transparency. Informing the offeror(s) allows them to focus

efforts on other proposals, other work efforts. The company doesn't have to keep a team

assembled and ready to react tying up resources.

FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iv)(E) states for orders exceeding $5.5M, provide a fair opportunity including

an opportunity for a postaward debriefing in accordance with paragraph (b)(6) of this section.

FAR 16.505(b)(6) states the contracting officer shall notify unsuccessful awardees when the total

price of a task or delivery order exceeds $5.5 million. Follow the procedures at 15.503(b)(1)

when providing postaward notification to unsuccessful awardees and 15.506 when providing

postaward debriefings.

When gates are used, it may be in the Governments and Offerors interest to provide preaward

notification to an offeror not receiving an acceptable/pass rating on a gate and not being further

evaluated. In making the preaward notification determination, the entire acquisition situation

should be considered. For example, if award will be made very quickly, a notification may not

be in the best interest. Or, for smaller acquistions, there may not be a great manpower burden on

offerors if they are not notified.

It is key to clearly articulate the evaluation process in the FOPR and detail that proposals not

receiving an acceptable/pass rating for a gate will not be further evaluated.

Upon receiving an unacceptable/fail rating for a gate, the CO may notify the offeror they were

unacceptable for a gate and will no longer be evaluated. It should not state an offeror was

eliminated from competition. Then, state postaward notices will be sent out IAW FAR

16.505(b)(6) as only a postaward debriefing is required under FAR 16.505. If a preaward debrief

is conducted, the protest clock starts as usual (if applicable).

A decision to stop evaluating an offeror should be thoroughly documented for the file, including

a discussion of the rationale and conclusion, consistent with the FOPR.

Template A, Ordering Procedures

Ordering

Procedures

Template B, Market Research Report

Market Research

Report - Simplified

Market Research

Report - Full AF Template

Template C, Fair Opportunity Proposal Request

FOPR Cover Letter

FOPR ITO LPTA

FOPR-ITO Tradeoff

R1.docx

Template D, Fair Opportunity Selection Plan

Fair Opportunity

Selection Plan

Template E, Oral Presentation Instructions

Oral Presentation

Instructions

Template F, Interchange Notice

Interchange Notice

Template

Template G, Fair Opportunity Decision Authority (FODA) Briefing

Sample if FODA is not Contracting Officer

Fair Opportunity

Decision Brief

Template H, Fair Opportunity Decision Document

Fair Opportunity

Decision Document

Template I, FAR 16.5 Fair Opportunity Selection Work Breakdown

Structure (WBS)/Schedule Tool

WBS/Schedule