Jump to content

Source Selection - Contrating Officer Involvement


Weno2

Recommended Posts

Source selection, tradeoff process. The contracting officer requests the technical evaluation team chairperson, for a briefing after the technical evaluation of each offeror. KO's rationale is it would save time, and be allow the KO to be active during the technical evaluation process, instead of getting the evaluations at the end of the technical evaluation processs.

The chairperson refuses the contracting officer's request.

Was the KO's request unreasonable? How involved/proactive should a KO be in the process?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Source selection, tradeoff process. The contracting officer requests the technical evaluation team chairperson, for a briefing after the technical evaluation of each offeror. KO's rationale is it would save time, and be allow the KO to be active during the technical evaluation process, instead of getting the evaluations at the end of the technical evaluation processs.

The chairperson refuses the contracting officer's request.

Was the KO's request unreasonable? How involved/proactive should a KO be in the process?

Yes the request was reasonable (unless there is an agency rule against this practice).

The KO is responsible for the source selection and should be setting the rules. In the last office I was in, it was was not uncommon for the KO to sit in on the technical evaluation..

The TEB works for the KO at the pleasure of the KO.

The KO can be as proactive as she/he wants to be.

The TEB chairperson had better cooperate or the KO can and should replace her/him.

What basis did the TEB chair have for refusing the KO's request?

I'm assuming here that the KO is the source selection authority, ultimately responsible for the selection decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Source selection evaluation teams can take many forms, depending upon the complexity of the source selection and organizational rules. Generally all of them eventually report their results to someone or another team higher up the selection chain, ultimately to a a person responsible for the selection decision.

I can see one reason why an evaluation team might hesitate to make interim reports to a KO. However, it shouldn't be a problem if the KO is smart:

It isn't uncommon to complete the rating of a proposal against the evaluation criteria, then discover we either missed something, misunderstood something or just plain gained a different perspective while evaluating another or other proposals. We would then go back and adjust the previous rating of a factor or two for the sake of consistency or to correct a mistake in the evaluation. But we had to be extremely careful to adjust it against the evaluation criteria and rating scheme, not against the other proposal(s). Sometimes, it was a matter of gaining better understanding of the actual eval criteria or the rating schema. Sometimes it was realizing that we were rating the same thing in 2 proposals differently. It wasn't a big deal and my role was often as the neutral referee to keep the process fair and consistent.

The chairperson or the team might have reservations about briefing the KO before the overall evaluation is complete because of what I said above. However, if the KO is "smart", she or he should understand that this will sometimes happen and work with the team to allow them to make the adjustment. The KO might even be the one to point out such inconsistencies as an observer of the actual evaluation or during a summation briefing. If that is the chairperson's hang-up, then she or he ought to bring it up to the KO and come to an understanding of how such situations must be handled, because they do occur.

I actually enjoyed having the KO sit in and observe the evaluation process in those few instances where it happened. I thought that it made her more aware of the details and allowed her to better understand the criteria and proposals. In order for her to maintain her independent judgement (required by Army source selection rules), she reserved the right to disagree with us in the final selection analysis.

There are many ways to skin a cat, as long as you follow the basic rules applicable to all source selections and the ones established for your particular acquisition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards
Source selection, tradeoff process. The contracting officer requests the technical evaluation team chairperson, for a briefing after the technical evaluation of each offeror. KO's rationale is it would save time, and be allow the KO to be active during the technical evaluation process, instead of getting the evaluations at the end of the technical evaluation processs.

The chairperson refuses the contracting officer's request.

Was the KO's request unreasonable? How involved/proactive should a KO be in the process?

I am inclined to think that the CO's request was unreasonable, even if the CO was the source selection authority. The CO is entitled to the results of the team's evaluation of proposals and to reject their evaluation if he or she thinks it is inconsistent with the RFP, not supported, or unreasonable. The CO is entitled to an explanation of evaluation findings. But a "briefing" after the evaluation of each proposal? FAR 13.303 makes the CO responsible for the evaluation, but a "briefing" after each evaluation strikes me as a bit much. A conversation, maybe, but not a "briefing." I've known some pretty imperious COs, myself included, but I cannot recall any asking for a "briefing" after each evaluation.

As for proactive participation, if the team has been properly prepared to do the evaluation I see no need for the CO to be an "active" participant in the process unless he or she is one of the evaluators. The team has been given the job, so let them do it. Who wants someone looking over their shoulder while doing their work? The CO might touch base and ask if they have any questions, but other than that, I would stay out of their way. If the CO is the SSA, then he or she gets the final word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am inclined to think that the CO's request was unreasonable, even if the CO was the source selection authority. The CO is entitled to the results of the team's evaluation of proposals and to reject their evaluation if he or she thinks it is inconsistent with the RFP, not supported, or unreasonable. The CO is entitled to an explanation of evaluation findings. But a "briefing" after the evaluation of each proposal? FAR 13.303 makes the CO responsible for the evaluation, but a "briefing" after each evaluation strikes me as a bit much. A conversation, maybe, but not a "briefing." I've known some pretty imperious COs, myself included, but I cannot recall any asking for a "briefing" after each evaluation.

As for proactive participation, if the team has been properly prepared to do the evaluation I see no need for the CO to be an "active" participant in the process unless he or she is one of the evaluators. The team has been given the job, so let them do it. Who wants someone looking over their shoulder while doing their work? The CO might touch base and ask if they have any questions, but other than that, I would stay out of their way. If the CO is the SSA, then he or she gets the final word.

The TEP and the KO are in different locations. The explanation the chairperson gave was it would take more time, if they had to "brief" (probably a harsh word to use) the KO after the evaluation of each proposal.

I'm sure I'm the first KO to ask the program office for any information pertaining to the evaluation, prior to their submitting their report.

Vern, did you have a conversation with the technical team after the evaluation of each proposal? Or did you wait until the technical evaluation team completed all their evaluations, and the chairperson provided a report of their evaluation?

I know the dynamics of each source selection is different, so my questions are "Did you generally."

I revised my request to a consideration w/the chairperson providing the contracting officer with a written preliminary rating and recommendation after each technical evaluation.

Is that an unreasonable request?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Source selection evaluation teams can take many forms, depending upon the complexity of the source selection and organizational rules. Generally all of them eventually report their results to someone or another team higher up the selection chain, ultimately to a a person responsible for the selection decision.

I can see one reason why an evaluation team might hesitate to make interim reports to a KO. However, it shouldn't be a problem if the KO is smart:

It isn't uncommon to complete the rating of a proposal against the evaluation criteria, then discover we either missed something, misunderstood something or just plain gained a different perspective while evaluating another or other proposals. We would then go back and adjust the previous rating of a factor or two for the sake of consistency or to correct a mistake in the evaluation. But we had to be extremely careful to adjust it against the evaluation criteria and rating scheme, not against the other proposal(s). Sometimes, it was a matter of gaining better understanding of the actual eval criteria or the rating schema. Sometimes it was realizing that we were rating the same thing in 2 proposals differently. It wasn't a big deal and my role was often as the neutral referee to keep the process fair and consistent.

The chairperson or the team might have reservations about briefing the KO before the overall evaluation is complete because of what I said above. However, if the KO is "smart", she or he should understand that this will sometimes happen and work with the team to allow them to make the adjustment. The KO might even be the one to point out such inconsistencies as an observer of the actual evaluation or during a summation briefing. If that is the chairperson's hang-up, then she or he ought to bring it up to the KO and come to an understanding of how such situations must be handled, because they do occur.

I actually enjoyed having the KO sit in and observe the evaluation process in those few instances where it happened. I thought that it made her more aware of the details and allowed her to better understand the criteria and proposals. In order for her to maintain her independent judgment (required by Army source selection rules), she reserved the right to disagree with us in the final selection analysis.

There are many ways to skin a cat, as long as you follow the basic rules applicable to all source selections and the ones established for your particular acquisition.

The rules in this Department, is the chairperson provides a preliminary report to the KO. After the KO blesses the preliminary report, chairperson finalizes the report. The person responsible for the decision, sees the report (final) after KO approval.

Joel, the chairperson brought up the exact scenario regarding possible changes. I said not an issue, b/c I've seen evaluation teams make adjustments during the process, and I've allowed such adjustments. I gave the chairperson two actual examples of when the team realized their "perspective' changed, so there were some scoring adjustments.

If we were located in the same location, I would sit in and observe the evaluation process, serving as a neutral party, to make sure the process is fair and consistent. Stop by a few times just to take the temperature of the evaluation process.

I learned a lot about the program, (i.e., what the government was buying, how it meets the mission, and the dynamics of the evaluation team) while sitting in and/or making occasional visits. Are they all on the same page? Are they "leaning" towards a contractor, etc.?

And -in turn - the evaluation team (customer) learns more about the KO, and the roles and responsibilities of the KO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards
The TEP and the KO are in different locations. The explanation the chairperson gave was it would take more time, if they had to "brief" (probably a harsh word to use) the KO after the evaluation of each proposal.

I'm sure I'm the first KO to ask the program office for any information pertaining to the evaluation, prior to their submitting their report.

Vern, did you have a conversation with the technical team after the evaluation of each proposal? Or did you wait until the technical evaluation team completed all their evaluations, and the chairperson provided a report of their evaluation?

I know the dynamics of each source selection is different, so my questions are "Did you generally."

I revised my request to a consideration w/the chairperson providing the contracting officer with a written preliminary rating and recommendation after each technical evaluation.

Is that an unreasonable request?

I think you meant that you revised your request to a conversation. You wrote "consideration."

I usually did not check after every proposal evaluation. In fact, I can't remember ever doing that. (Although memory might fail me.) What mattered to me was the comparisons among proposals, and I could wait for the preliminary final report of the entire evaluation for that. It was then that I would check the evaluation documentation to make sure that the team adhered to the criteria and adequately documented their findings and conclusions. Sometimes I would wander into the evaluation area and look at strength and deficiency reports, and I might comment on them, but as I remember it I usually waited until the end. I don't remember ever "observing," because there wasn't much to see, except people staring at proposals and making notes. It was rather dull. I did not go to team discussions because they didn't need me breathing down their necks. Because of what I was working on the source selection authority was usually a couple of pay grades above me, but even when I was the SSA I didn't check in all that often. I worked with highly structured evaluation documentation and it was easy to spot problems when I received my copy of the reports. Every CO is different, but I feel that you shouldn't "bug" people while they're working. As for learning about the program, I did that before the RFP went out. And I didn't care if they learned anything about me or not. Why should they want to? I was probably more concerned that they thought I was a decent hitter on the softball team and that they noticed my paratrooper coffee mug when they came to my office.

I can only say that I can understand the team chairperson balking at providing a "briefing" to the CO after each evaluation, especially if the CO is not the SSA, as appears to be the situation in your case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rules in this Department, is the chairperson provides a preliminary report to the KO. After the KO blesses the preliminary report, chairperson finalizes the report. The person responsible for the decision, sees the report (final) after KO approval.

Joel, the chairperson brought up the exact scenario regarding possible changes. I said not an issue, b/c I've seen evaluation teams make adjustments during the process, and I've allowed such adjustments. I gave the chairperson two actual examples of when the team realized their "perspective' changed, so there were some scoring adjustments.

If we were located in the same location, I would sit in and observe the evaluation process, serving as a neutral party, to make sure the process is fair and consistent. Stop by a few times just to take the temperature of the evaluation process.

I learned a lot about the program, (i.e., what the government was buying, how it meets the mission, and the dynamics of the evaluation team) while sitting in and/or making occasional visits. Are they all on the same page? Are they "leaning" towards a contractor, etc.?

And -in turn - the evaluation team (customer) learns more about the KO, and the roles and responsibilities of the KO.

Considering the alleged shortfalls in the overall quality of today's source selection's, a little more KO/SSA involvement would seem reasonable to me.

I would say that an oral discussion between the Chair and the KO (I'm assuming that you are also the SSA in this instance) after they finish the evaluation of a proposal wouldn't seem unreasonable. The team might only possess notes for the formal write-up at this point though. Writing up the evaluations does take time.

However, I would definitely want to know that my board was evaluating proposals using an organized, acceptable approach.

I know that a lot of Boards and Contracting officials alike concentrate on the factor or element "score" or rating then worry about how to support that rating, which is the opposite of how I evaluate proposals. The board should concentrate on determining and documenting the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies and clarifications, then let the rating more or less fall out on its own, based upon the rating criteria.

The Chair ought to be able to go through her notes at least, if the final write-up isn't done. And yes, certainly assure her that adjustments can be made throughout the process. She could update you on those type things during the oral brief.

I think that would be reasonable, but a written daily or interim report is a resource time waster to me. Its time consuming enough to prepare the boards official documentation without adding more reports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that a lot of Boards and Contracting officials alike concentrate on the factor or element "score" or rating then worry about how to support that rating, which is the opposite of how I evaluate proposals. The board should concentrate on determining and documenting the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies and clarifications, then let the rating more or less fall out on its own, based upon the rating criteria.

My experience is Boards and evaluators appreciate having the CO train them in the process, be around to answer questions, and occassionally verify they are doing the evaluation properly, especially if the individual evaluators haven't done an evlaution before or it was a long time ago. This doesn't mean a briefing on the results. It just means the evaluation is being performed and documented consistent with what the CO wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards
Considering the alleged shortfalls in the overall quality of today's source selection's, a little more KO/SSA involvement would seem reasonable to me.

I have to laugh at that, Joel. Considering the alleged shortfals in the overall quality of today's source selections, I say that there are a lot of COs and SSAs who don't know what the heck they're doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to laugh at that, Joel. Considering the alleged shortfals in the overall quality of today's source selections, I say that there are a lot of COs and SSAs who don't know what the heck they're doing.

Yep, I said: "Considering the alleged shortfalls in the overall quality of today's source selection's, a little more KO/SSA involvement would seem reasonable to me."

Notice that I didn't say: "Considering the alleged shortfalls in the overall quality of today's source selection's, a little more KO/SSA oversight would seem reasonable to me."

I think they might learn more if they occasionally sat in on the process. Back in the mid 1990's, I ran or supervised my folks who "ran" of all of our construction, design-build and JOC source selections and those service contract source selections assigned to us. We also negotiated all sole source contracts. Neither the SSA (KO) nor any contract specialists set foot in the evaluation room or participate in negotiations. Nor did they prepare any of the source selection plans, documentation, discussions, write-ups, trade-off analyses, decision memo's, debriefings, etc.

Now please realize that USACE Contracting civilians only took over the Contracting Officer role from the District Military leadership after passage of the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act in the late 1980's. They were trying to both run Contracting and learn contract Administration functions at that time. Nobody in Contracting wanted to run source selections or to negotiate new contracts, so my boss took it on. I took over when he left in the early 1990's.

After I transferred to a Division level office in the late 1990's, Contracting had to take over the process. In circa 2004, Army policy came out which made the KO/SSA independently make all the decisions...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say that our Chief of Contracting (one of the KO's) was TOTALLY competent as a Contracting Officer and as SSA. I served with him in the first Gulf War and he was FANTASTIC! He had great trust in me and we worked together very well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...