Transcript AFSPC Briefing Template - National Contract Management

Department of Defense
Source Selection
Procedures
National Contract Management
Association (NCMA)
Pikes Peak Chapter
May 17, 2012
Suzanne Snyder,
CPCM,CFMC, CPPO,
Fellow
Source Selection Policy Update
Contracting Officers shall follow the
principles/procedures in OUSD(AT&L)/DPAP memo, 4
Mar 11, Department of Defense Source Selection
Procedures, when conducting negotiated, competitive
acquisitions utilizing FAR part 15 procedures (DFARS
215.300 / PGI)*
*New procedures will be applicable over the Simplified Acquisition
Threshold (currently set at $150,000)
2
Background for DoD Policy Update
•
•
•
•
•
Procedures resulted from a Joint Analysis Team
Examined current source selection processes
utilized within DoD
Identified key elements of a successful source
selection
Develop procedures to provide uniform guidance
Develop procedures to simplify the source selection
process
3
Refresher…What is Source Selection?
• Source Selection is a process that deals with the
selection of a contractor through a competitive
negotiation
• The process begins with the establishment of an
evaluation plan for a proposed acquisition and
ends when the Source Selecting Authority (SSA)
selects a contractor who will receive a contract
award
• Consists of a continuum of approaches and tradeoff
options to obtain the best value - under DoD two
distinctions:
• Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA)
• Tradeoffs between non-cost factors and cost/price
4
Source Selection Process Overview
ASP
PreRFP
CPD #1
RFP
Release
CPD #2
Peer Review
Competitive Range Briefing
(Initial Evaluation Brief IEB)
CPD#3
Peer Review (MIRT)
Proposal
Receipt
Oral Presentations
Interim Ratings
and ENs released
Pre-FPR
CPD #4
EN Responses
Request
for FPR
Ratings
Released
Peer Review
Decision
CPD #5
Award
FPR Receipt
Debriefings
EXCHANGES
CO controls after release of RFP
• Req Devel
• Risk
Assessment
• Acq Strategy
• DRFPs
• Conferences
• One-on-One
Mtgs
• Market
Research
• Acquisition
Plan
• Cost/Price
Risk
exchanges
with offerors
• Business
Clearance
• Independent
Review
Discussions
(only w/offerors in CR)
• CO Responses
to Questions
• RFP
Amendments
•
•
•
•
All proposals eval
Comp range deliberated
No revisions allowed
Communicate only with
those uncertain if in/out
of CR
Communications
for greater understanding
leading to Competitive
Range Determination
• Must discuss
• significant
weaknesses
• deficiencies
• other aspects to
enhance award
potential
• Proposal revisions
allowed
• Contract
Clearance
• Independent
Review
• Independent
Review
PAR
SSDD
Debriefings of successful and
unsuccessful offerors. Same
rating charts as shown to SSA
5
Source Selection Policy Update
These procedures ARE NOT required for:
---Competitions where the only evaluated factor is price
---Basic research and acquisitions where Broad Agency Announcements
(BAA) are used in accordance with FAR Part 35 to solicit proposals and
award contracts
---Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR), Small Business Technology
Transfer Research (STTR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (SBTT)
acquisitions solicited and awarded in accordance with 15 United States
Code (U.S.C.), Section 638
---Architect-engineer services solicited and awarded in accordance with
FAR Part 36
--Acquisitions using simplified acquisition procedures in accordance with
FAR Part 13 (including Part 12 acquisitions using Part 13 procedures)
---FAR Part 12 Streamlined Acquisitions
---Orders under multiple award contracts – Fair Opportunity (FAR 16.505
(b)(1))
and
---Acquisitions using FAR subpart 8.4.
6
Source Selection Organization
Source Selection Team
Source Selection Authority (SSA)
Advisors (Cost or Pricing, Legal, Small
Business and other subject-matter experts.
Contracting Officer (PCO,CO, KO)
Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC)
Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB)
SSA
Advisors
PCO/CO/KO
SSAC
SSEB Chair
Advisors
Technical Capability
Past Performance Team
Cost/Price
Contract Elements
7
The Players --Source Selection Team
Composition
• Source Selection Authority (SSA)
• Shall be other than the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) for
acquisitions estimated at $100M or more, regardless of procedure
used
• PCO is also referred to as CO or KO
• Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC)
• Required for acquisitions estimated at $100M or more
• Prepares written comparative analysis of proposals, provides source
selection recommendation to SSA and oversight to the SSEB
• Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB)
• SSEB may conduct comparative analysis/make source selection
recommendation only if specifically requested by SSA or required by
Source Selection Plan
• Advisors, cost/pricing experts, legal counsel, small business specialists,
other subject matter experts
SSA Roles and Responsibilities

Individual designated to make the best-value decision

Responsible for proper and efficient conduct of source selection in
accordance with laws & regulations

Appoint chairpersons for SSEB and SSAC when used
 Establish team and ensure team membership remains consistent for
duration of selection process
 Ensure all involved in source selection are knowledgeable of the policies
and procedures for properly and efficiently conducting source selection

Ensure no senior leader is assigned to or performing multiple leadership
roles in the source selection
 Ensure source selection pacing is driven by events and not by the schedule
DOD Procedures:
1.4.1.1 For acquisitions with a total estimated value of $100M or more, the SSA
shall be an individual other than the PCO. For all other acquisitions, the PCO may
serve as the SSA in accordance with FAR 15.303 unless the Agency head or
designee appoints another individual.
9
SSA Roles and Responsibilities cont.

Source Selection Authority (SSA)
 Ensure all are briefed and knowledgeable of law regarding
unauthorized disclosure of source selection information
 Ensure all persons receiving source selection information are
instructed to comply with standards of conduct and sign the Source
Selection Non-Disclosure Agreement
 Approve the Source Selection Plan (SSP) before release of RFP
 Make the determination to award w/o discussions, establish
competitive range or enter into discussions, approve release of
Evaluation ns
 Select the source whose proposal offers best value IAW RFP
evaluation criteria
 Document decision in Source Selection Decision Document
(SSDD)
10
PCO-CO-KO Roles and
Responsibilities

Contracting Officer (CO, KO or PCO) – primary business advisor &
principal guidance source for the entire source selection (BIG JOB)
 Manage all business aspects of the acquisition
 Assist and advise the SSA on proper execution of each source
selection event
 Ensure required approvals are obtained and contract clause
requirements are met before non-government personnel are allowed to
provide source selection support (CO must have copy of agreement in
file as required by FAR 9.505-4)
 Ensure procedures exist to safeguard source selection information
(FAR 3.104)
 Approve access to or release of source selection information before
and after contract award (FAR 3.104-4)
 Maintain source selection evaluation records
 Ensure that the SSP reflects the approved acquisition strategy and
contains linkages between requirements documents, program risks,
evaluation criteria, and proposed evaluation methodology that will
facilitate a sound SS decision
 Ensure that requests for delegations are completed and documented in
file
11
PCO-CO-KO Roles and
Responsibilities

Contracting Officer (CO)
 Release RFP after approval of business clearance and SSA approved
SSP





Single Point of Contact (POC) for inquires from actual or prospective
offerors
Ensure proposals are evaluated on only the criteria in the approved source
selection plan and the Request for Proposals (RFP) Section M
All evaluation records and narratives shall be reviewed collaboratively by
the CO and the SSEB Chairperson for completeness and compliance with
mandatory procedure
Control exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals
Approve release of ENs if designated this authority by the SSA in the
Source Selection Plan

Assist SSEB chairperson with preparation of the PAR and SSD
 Obtain contract clearance before contract award
 Ensure unsuccessful offerors are debriefed and that the debriefing is
documented
12
SSAC Chairperson
Roles and Responsibilities

Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) Chairperson

Subject to SSA approval, appoint SSAC members and request additional assistance
from other governmental sources such as Secretariat, HQ USAF, or from joint service
members

Ensure all SSAC members are knowledgeable of their responsibilities

Review the SSP and any revision prior to SSA approval

Convene SSAC meetings as requested by SSA

SSAC shall review the evaluation and findings of the SSEB to ensure their accuracy,
consistency, and supportability and shall provide advice, analysis, briefings, and
consultation as requested by the SSA

Shall recommend a source for the SSA’s consideration
 DOD Procedures:
•1.4.3.1.2.Organizations shall establish an SSAC for acquisitions with a total estimated
value of $100M or more. An SSAC is optional for acquisitions with a total estimated
value of less than $100M.
•1.4.3.1.3. The primary role of the SSAC is to provide a written comparative analysis
and recommendation to the SSA. When an SSAC is established, it will provide oversight
to the SSEB.
13
SSEB Chairperson
Roles and Responsibilities

SSEB Chairperson







Subject to SSA approval, appoint SSEB members including PCAG and
chair
Ensure personnel, resources, time assigned to the source selection reflect
the complexity of the acquisition
Ensure SSEB members are knowledgeable of their responsibilities
including details on how the evaluation is to be conducted BEFORE any
proposal is reviewed
SSEB shall prepare and maintain SSP
Ensure proposals are evaluated on only the criteria in the approved source
selection plan and the Request for Proposals (RFP) Section M
All evaluation records and narratives shall be reviewed collaboratively by
the CO and the SSEB Chairperson for completeness and compliance with
mandatory procedure
Support SS activities such as debriefings & post award meetings
14
SSEB Members
Roles and Responsibilities

SSEB Members
 Comprehensive review & evaluation of proposals only using the
RFP requirements and established criteria
 Write ENs for SSEB Chairman to recommend SSA approve release
 Prepare the evaluation documentation
 Participate in debriefings to offerors
 If no SSAC, recommend a source to the SSA
15
Non-Government Advisors
May be authorized, but should be minimized as much as possible (1.4.5.2)
-- Non-Government advisors, other than Federally Funded Research and Development
Centers (FFRDCs), shall be supported by a written determination based on FAR 37.203 and
37.204.
All non-Government advisors shall sign the non-disclosure agreement
signed by all Government employees who are participating in the source selection
(1.4.5.2.1)
-- Submit documentation to the PCO
-- PCO must ensure Government has received consent of the submitting contractor(s) to
provide access to the contractor who is to assist in the source selection
Non-Government advisors may assist in and provide input regarding the
evaluation, but they may not determine ratings or rankings of offerors’ proposals
1.4.5.2.2.
-- Disclosure of past performance information to non-Government personnel is strictly
prohibited (FAR 42.1503)
16
CAUTION
• There is no one “best approach” to source selection
• The least complex option that meets the acquisition
needs will be the best considering:
• Degree of complexity of requirement
• If the requirements are clearly defined (SOO vs PWS)
• If the government desires different options and
approaches
• The risk of successful performance
• The market conditions
• Successful source selections start with engaged
multi-functional teams from the point at which the
need is identified
17
Traditional Outcomes
Requirements Docs
Best Value Continuum
Source Selection Criteria
More
SOO
FULL
TRADE-OFF
Less
CRITERIA
PWS
HYBRID
e.g. PPT
DETAILS
Less
More
Detailed construction specs
LPTA
18
The Best-Value Continuum – Source
Selection Techniques
Greater
Relative Importance of Cost or Price
Lesser
Lesser
Importance of Non-Cost Factors
Greater
FAR Part 15.101, FAR Subpart 15.3, as supplemented
Trade-Off
Lowest Price
Tradeoff Source Selection
Process
Technically Acceptable described in DoD Source Selection
SourceProcedures
(LPTA) Source
Selection
Oh! The possibilities!
Selection Process
Process
described in DoD Source
Selection Procedures,
Appendix A
Technical
described in
Mix-n-match tradeoffs: Technical Risk
DoD Source
Past
Performance
Selection
Cost or Price
Procedures
Cost or Price
Non-Cost Factors
Non-Cost Factors
Lowest
Price
Low Price
19
Determining the Source Selection
Technique
•
•
First, consider the rating methodology the team will use for the subfactors and
factors w/o subfactors
• Determine if the offerors’ response to the criteria (technical solution
and/or risk) can be assessed by
• Pass/fail –acceptable/unacceptable
• Rating levels – acceptable – better - best
• Method of assessment can vary for factors/subfactors (pass/fail for
some, rating for others)
• Selected approach must consider trade space
• Do we have money to pay for better or best?
• Is there a benefit to exceeding the requirements?
• How critical is price?
Finally, review the best value continuum to determine which source selection
technique (or hybrid) is most appropriate
20
Lowest Price Technically Acceptable
(LPTA) Process
• Appropriate when best value is expected from
selection of technically acceptable proposal with the
lowest evaluated price
• Not limited to low dollar actions!
• When bar to meet “pass” is high and budgets tight may
not be anything to trade -- LPTA appropriate
• Tradeoffs are not permitted (no better or best)
• Past Performance (PP) may be used as an evaluation
factor but rated only as acceptable or unacceptable
• Proposals are evaluated for technical acceptability but
not ranked using non-cost/price factors
21
Trade-Off Process
• Trade-Off is used when it is in the best interest of
the Government to consider award to other than the
lowest priced offeror or other than the highest
technically rated offeror
• This process permits:
• Tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors
• Best combination of technically superior, low risk
proposals that also have a history of favorable past
performance
• Selection of approach where benefit of a higher priced
proposal merits the additional cost
• Requires environment where trade space exists in
cost or price and non-cost factors
22
Pre-Solicitation Activities
• Risk assessment--required as necessary to support acquisition
planning process
• Market research—Use of Industry Day(s) and draft Request for
Proposals (RFP) are highly recommended for all acquisitions
• Source Selection Plan (SSP) required for all best-value, negotiated,
competitive acquisitions under FAR Part 15
• SSA approves SSP prior to issuance of final RFP
• Evaluation factors/subfactors--expected to be discriminators
• All source selections shall evaluate:
• Cost or Price of supplies or services being acquired
• Quality of Product or Service
• Consideration of one or more non-cost evaluation
factor(s) tailored to the source selection process
employed
23
Developing Evaluation Criteria –
Factors & Subfactors
•
•
•
Iterative Process!
• Incorporate knowledge gained from:
• Market Research
• Acquisition activities
Evaluation factors shall
• Represent key areas of importance and emphasis
• Support meaningful comparison and discrimination between and among
competing proposals
We must evaluate:
• Price/Cost
• Quality of Product or Service
• Technical (Examples - Technical excellence/management
capability/past performance/Small Business)
Focus on significant Discriminators and Maximize Streamlining by only Evaluating what Must
be Evaluated
24
Here’s Just a Few of the Options!
*Variations refer to DoD Source Selection Appx
Cost/Price
Past
Performance
(Pass/Fail)
Full
Performance
Confidence
Assessment
Technical (All
Subfactors
Pass/Fail)
Technical
(Combination
of Pass/Fail and
Color/Adjectival
Ratings by
Subfactor)
Technical Risk
(Low,
Moderate, or
High)
Variation
1a

Variation
1b


Variation
2a

Variation
2b



Variation
3a




Variation
3b


Variation
4a

Variation
4b












25
COST/PRICE
PAST PERFORMANCE P/F
Variation 1a
• Evaluate
• Cost or price of all proposals, and
• Past performance of all offerors on “Acceptable” or
“Unacceptable” basis (DoD Source Selection
Procedures, Appendix A, Table A-2)
• Award without discussions or enter into the
discussion process (follow Sections 3.2 - 3.10
of DoD Source Selection Procedures, as
supplemented, as applicable)
“The SSA may choose, in rare circumstances,
to award a contract on the basis of the initial proposals received
without conducting discussions.”
26
COST/PRICE
PAST PERFORMANCE - Confidence
Variation 1b
• Evaluate cost or price of all proposals, and
• Conduct a full Performance Confidence
Assessment (Section 3.1.3. DoD Source
Selection Procedures, as supplemented) on all
offerors
• Award without discussions or enter into the
discussion process (follow Sections 3.2 - 3.10
of DoD Source Selection Procedures, as
supplemented, as applicable)
27
COST/PRICE
PAST PERFORMANCE P/F
TECHNICAL P/F
Variation 2a
• Evaluate:
• All technical proposals using DoD Source Selection
Procedures, Appendix A, Table A-1 rating
descriptions of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”,
• Cost or price of all proposals, and
• Past performance of all offerors using Appendix A,
Table A-2 rating descriptions of “Acceptable” or
“Unacceptable”
• Award without discussions or enter into the
discussion process (following Sections 3.2 3.10, as applicable)
28
COST/PRICE
PAST PERFORMANCE - Confidence
TECHNICAL P/F
Variation 2b
• Evaluate all technical proposals using Appendix A,
Table A-1 rating descriptions of “Acceptable” or
“Unacceptable”,
• Evaluate cost or price of all proposals, and
• Conduct a full Performance Confidence
Assessment (Section 3.1.3. DoD Source Selection
Procedures, as supplemented) on all offerors
• Award without discussions or enter into the
discussion process (follow Sections 3.2 - 3.10 of
DoD Source Selection Procedures, as
supplemented, as applicable)
29
COST/PRICE
PAST PERFORMANCE P/F
TECHNICAL P/F
RISK
Variation 3a
• Evaluate:
• All technical proposals using Appendix A, Table A-1
rating descriptions of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”
and separately assess Technical Risk as “Low”,
“Moderate”, “High” rating using Table 3 descriptions
• Cost or price of all proposals, and
• Past performance of all offerors using Appendix A, Table
A-2 rating descriptions of “Acceptable” or
“Unacceptable”
• Award without discussions or enter into the discussion
process (following Sections 3.2 - 3.10, as applicable)
30
COST/PRICE
PAST PERFORMANCE Confidence
TECHNICAL P/F
RISK
Variation 3b
• Evaluate all technical proposals using Appendix A,
Table A-1 rating descriptions of “Acceptable” or
“Unacceptable” and assess “Low”, “Moderate”, “High”
Technical Risk rating using Table 3 descriptions
• Evaluate cost or price of all proposals, and
• Conduct a full Performance Confidence Assessment
(Section 3.1.3. DoD Source Selection Procedures, as
supplemented) on all offerors
• Award without discussions or enter into the discussion
process (following Sections 3.2 - 3.10, as applicable)
31
COST/PRICE
PAST PERFORMANCE P/F
TECHNICAL Adjectival
RISK
Variation 4a
• Evaluate
• All technical proposals using a combination of
color/adjectival ratings described Table 1, or Tables 2 and 3,
and Appendix A, Table A-1 rating descriptions of
“Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” and assess “Low”,
“Moderate”, “High” Technical Risk rating using Table 3
descriptions at the subfactor level,
• Cost or price of all proposals, and
• Past performance of all offerors using Appendix A, Table A-2
rating descriptions of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”
• Award without discussions or enter into the discussion
process (follow Sections 3.2 - 3.10 of DoD Source
Selection Procedures, as supplemented, as applicable)
32
COST/PRICE
PAST PERFORMANCE Confidence
TECHNICAL Adjectival
RISK
Variation 4b
• Evaluate all technical proposals using a combination of
color/adjectival ratings described Table 1, or Tables 2 and 3,
and Appendix A, Table A-1 rating descriptions of
“Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” and assess “Low”,
“Moderate”, “High” Technical Risk rating using Table 3
descriptions at the subfactor level,
• Evaluate cost or price of all proposals, and
• Conduct a full Performance Confidence Assessment
(Section 3.1.3. DoD Source Selection Procedures, as
supplemented) on all offerors
• Award without discussions or enter into the discussion
process (follow Sections 3.2 - 3.10 of DoD Source Selection
Procedures, as supplemented, as applicable)
33
Evaluation Process
• Technical approach and related technical risk – one of two
evaluation methodologies can be used
• Combined (single) rating – risk evaluated as one aspect of
technical evaluation, inherent in technical evaluation factor
or subfactor ratings; or
• Separate technical and risk ratings assigned at technical
factor (or subfactor level if subfactors used)
• Past Performance
• Extent of participation of Small Business concerns
• Separate evaluation factor, or a subfactor under technical factor
• Pass/fail; or use same ratings scheme as for technical/risk
• Considered within evaluation of one of the technical subfactors
• No separate small business rating applied
34
Technical Rating Evaluation
(Methodology 1)
Table 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.
35
Technical Rating Evaluation
(Methodology 2)
Table 2. Technical Ratings
Color
Rating
Description
Blue
Outstanding
Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional
approach and understanding of the requirements. The
proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.
Purple
Good
Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough
approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal
contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.
Green
Acceptable
Yellow
Marginal
Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate
approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal
has no strengths or deficiencies.
Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not
demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the
requirements.
Red
Unacceptable
Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or
more deficiencies and is unawardable.
36
Technical Risk Rating (Methodology 2)
Table 3. Technical Risk Ratings
Rating
Description
Low
Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule,
increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal
contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will
likely be able to overcome any difficulties.
Moderate
Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased
cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor
emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be
able to overcome difficulties.
Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule,
increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to
overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor
emphasis and close Government monitoring.
High
37
Past Performance Evaluation
Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings
Rating
Definition
Very 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 similar
scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this
solicitation requires.
Present/past performance effort involved some of
the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities
this solicitation requires.
Somewhat Relevant
Not Relevant
Present/past performance effort involved little or
none of the scope and magnitude of effort and
complexities this solicitation requires.
38
Performance Confidence Assessments
Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments
Rating
Description
Substantial 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 performance record, the
Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will
successfully perform the required effort.
Limited Confidence
Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the
Government has a low expectation that the offeror will
successfully perform the required effort.
No Confidence
Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the
Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to
successfully perform the required effort.
Unknown Confidence
(Neutral)
No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s
performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence
assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.
39
Evaluation and Decision Process
• Discussions are highly recommended for source selections
• Award without discussions shall occur in only limited
circumstances
• PCO establishes competitive range; SSA approves
• When PCO is not SSA, SSA concurrence required prior to
releasing the request for final proposal revisions
• Definitions Chapter: “strength” -- an aspect of an offeror's
proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or
capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to
the Government during contract performance
• Debriefings -- PCO encouraged to use Debriefing Guide
provided at Appendix B
40
Summary
• Goal is to select the proposal that represents the
best value
• FAR 15 negotiated competitive actions
• More formal process, try to make it simplified
• Teams are essential
• Evaluation criteria tailored to each acquisition
• Must be followed through the evaluation process and
award decision
• Integrity and creditability of the process must be
maintained
41