US Army Corps of Engineers

BUILDING STRONG®

Kay Sommerkamp

Attorney

US Army Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville

Energy Exchange August 2015

The Art of Source Selection

BUILDING STRONG®2

Evaluation FactorsThe balance between sections L

&M Evaluation factors must:

►Represent key areas of importance►Support meaningful comparison and

discrimination between and among competing proposals

►Price or cost must be considered

Quality of product or service Past performance

BUILDING STRONG®3

Guidelines for Writing Strengths and Weaknesses

What’s dog got to do with it?

BUILDING STRONG®4

American Kennel Club Section MMiniature Schnauzer Breed Standard--Terrier GroupGeneral Appearance

The Miniature Schnauzer is a robust, active dog of terrier type, resembling his larger cousin, the Standard Schnauzer, in general appearance, and of an alert, active disposition. Faults - Type - Toyishness, ranginess or coarseness.

Size, Proportion, Substance Size - From 12 to 14 inches. He is sturdily built, nearly square in proportion of body length to height with plenty of bone, and without any suggestion of toyishness. Disqualifications - Dogs or bitches under 12 inches or over 14 inches.

HeadEyes - Small, dark brown and deep-set. They are oval in appearance and keen in expression. Faults - Eyes light and/or large and prominent in appearance. Ears - When cropped, the ears are identical in shape and length, with pointed tips. They are in balance with the head and not exaggerated in length. They are set high on the skull and carried perpendicularly at the inner edges, with as little bell as possible along the outer edges. When uncropped, the ears are small and V-shaped, folding close to the skull.

Head strong and rectangular, its width diminishing slightly from ears to eyes, and again to the tip of the nose. The forehead is unwrinkled. The topskull is flat and fairly long. The foreface is parallel to the topskull, with a slight stop, and it is at least as long as the topskull. The muzzle is strong in proportion to the skull; it ends in a moderately blunt manner, with thick whiskers which accentuate the rectangular shape of the head. Faults - Head coarse and cheeky. The teeth meet in a scissors bite. That is, the upper front teeth overlap the lower front teeth in such a manner that the inner surface of the upper incisors barely touches the outer surface of the lower incisors when the mouth is closed. Faults - Bite - Undershot or overshot jaw. Level bite.

BUILDING STRONG®5

Conducting Evaluations—Using Adjectival RatingsTABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

BUILDING STRONG®6

Proposal WritingSwimming in the water

you’re in… Address all items that include “shall,” “must,” or other imperatives

Watch your page count Write to sections L & M (instructions to offerors

and evaluation factors) Highlight your strengths and count them Don’t be generic Find an editor

BUILDING STRONG®

“Gate-Keeper” FactorA multipurpose tool

Gatekeeper factors are one way of streamlining evaluations:►Evaluate the most important factor (usually technical

experience evaluated adjectivally)►Factor must not be equal to others►Down select the most highly qualified ►No Discussions on Gatekeeper Factor►Evaluate the rest of the factors and make award

7

BUILDING STRONG®8

Conducting Evaluations—Past Performance (continued)

When conducting past performance evaluation, we first look at whether or not a specific project was relevant to the contract for which we are evaluating proposals.

Ultimately, we only care about projects that are relevant

BUILDING STRONG®9

Conducting Evaluations—Past Performance (continued)

The Army’s Past Performance Evaluation Scheme:

Past Performance Relevancy RatingsRating DefinitionVery Relevant Present/past performance effort involved

essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similarscope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some ofthe scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little ornone of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

BUILDING STRONG®10

Conducting Evaluations—Past Performance (continued)

The Army’s Past Performance Evaluation Scheme:

Performance Confidence AssessmentsRating DescriptionSubstantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance

record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performancerecord, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performancerecord, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performancerecord, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparsethat no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

BUILDING STRONG®

Industry Input

You have more input than you think.

11

•Market ReseachMarket Reseach•Draft RFPDraft RFP•Industry dayIndustry day•Actual RFPActual RFP•Preproposal conferencePreproposal conference