Evaluator Working Papers and Notes: What To Do With Them? by Vernon J. Edwards

[bob7947]

THE NASH & CIBINIC REPORT presents:

Evaluator Working Papers and Notes: What To Do With Them? by Vernon J. Edwards

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

Below is the Topic that Vern mentions in this article.

 

[C Culham]

13 hours ago, bob7947 said:

THE NASH & CIBINIC REPORT presents:

Evaluator Working Papers and Notes: What To Do With Them? by Vernon J. Edwards

Thank you to Vern for sharing.   

I would like to recommend that this and other such sharing that Vern provides in response to thread discussions be posted at the "What Happened" topic area with specific reference to the topic area and title of the discussion it is related to.  Doing so seems in keeping with the intent of "What Happened".  Thanks in advance Bob for considering.

[Voyager]

The “Our Advice” section of this report is extremely helpful.  So often a CO just doesn't know where to put his foot down on topics like this records one.  You meet a need, @Vern Edwards and co., and I thank you tremendously for that.  Here it is quoted:

Quote

Our Advice

First, agency source selection plans should (1) describe the system of documents that the agency and its evaluators must, should, and may create during the evaluation of proposals; (2) specify the procedures that must be followed for creating, collecting, retaining, and preserving such documents; and (3) identify the official who will be responsible for ensuring compliance with those procedures, whether the CO, the head of the evaluation team, or someone else.

Second, COs should brief evaluators on the requirements of FAR Subpart 4.8 and emphasize the importance of creating and maintaining “adequate and proper” records for sound decisionmaking [sic]. They should advise evaluators that their notes and working papers will be part of the contract file and are not personal records.

Third, COs should familiarize themselves with their agency's records management policies and procedures and seek and document legal advice before destroying any source selection document or ordering or permitting any such document to be destroyed.

While those measures are important in all acquisitions, it should go without saying that they are especially important in large dollar value competitive acquisitions.

I have some technical advice.  In practice, a CO should write his SSP to mandate that the evaluators’ actual creations of records occur in the CO’s system, which should also be the one in which they will be retained.  A shared, restricted Microsoft file folder is best for this.  This easy nudge at the outset of a source selection goes a long way toward records compliance the rest of the retention period, because it eliminates the decision-making process and action step of having to get evaluators to post their notes into the system from their own computer.

One minor thing not in scope of the paper, which maybe the WIFCON community can handle, is this: in implementing the SSP here, what soft skills does a CO need to use to deter evaluators, in response to the importance newly assigned to their writings, from deciding to simply not write notes, or even to hide them?  This strategy may naturally unfold from a technical mind fearful of protest.  It would certainly impair decision-making.

[formerfed]

4 hours ago, Voyager said:

 

In practice, COs should write their SSP to mandate that the evaluators’ actual creation of records occurs in the CO’s system, which should also be the one in which they will be retained.  A shared, restricted Microsoft file folder is best for this.  This easy nudge at the outset of a source selection goes a long way toward records compliance at the protest timeframe, because it eliminates the decision-making process and action step of having to get evaluators to post their notes into the system from their own computer.

One minor thing not in scope of the paper, which maybe the WIFCON community can handle, is this: in implementing the SSP here, what soft skills does a CO need to use to deter evaluators, in response to the importance newly assigned to their writings, from deciding to simply not write notes, or even to hide them?  This strategy may naturally unfold from a technical mind fearful of protest.  It would certainly impair decision-making.

Several automated systems exist to satisfy both these concerns.  The tools cover everything from creating and sharing SSPs, use of evaluation templates, assisting in evaluating and documenting proposals, facilitating consensus among teams, and storing all selection information.  It also makes it easy for reviewers including legal counsel to examine and critique all the data.

One benefit that often gets overlooked is all evaluators don’t need to be physically located in the same place while the tool provides necessary security.  Another is a team lead can pull evaluator comments up, either as individuals or as a group to discuss.  The lead can show the factors as well as key parts of proposals for everyone to see at the same time.

The bottom line is all documentation is in one spot and it’s clear that it reflects everyone’s opinion.