Permits the use of tradeoffs between price and non-price factors.
May include non-price factors such as technical and past performance.
Allows the government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal.
Requires the relative importance of all evaluation factors to be identified in the solicitation.
Provide offeror representations and certifications.
Identify previous experience with similar requirements.
Address how it intends to meet the government’s requirement.
Demonstrate the financial capacity to complete the subsequent contract.
Determine the contractor non-responsive.
Eliminate the offeror from the competitive range.
Remove pages in excess of the maximum allowed from the back of the proposal.
Accept the proposal “as is” only if determined to be one of the most highly rated proposals.
The government may hold discussions at any time regardless of the request for proposal (RFP) instructions.
The government is not obligated to notify offerors of its intent to award without discussions.
It is in the government’s best interest to avoid discussions for time-sensitive acquisitions.
Discussions may be held with only the most favored offerors still within the competitive range.
Using non-commercial specifications.
Including as many evaluation factors as possible.
Tailoring the evaluation criteria contained in Section K.
Is only evaluated when using tradeoffs.
Must be evaluated in every source selection.
May not be used as an evaluation factor when using tradeoffs.
Is only evaluated when an acquisition is subject to the Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA).
The acceptability of a product or service only.
The acceptability of non-price evaluation factors or subfactors.
The rankings of non-price factor/subfactors and the acceptability of a product or service.
Similarity of service/support.
Number of contracts performed.
Use of weighted guidelines.
Comparison of proposed prices.
Use of parametric estimating methods.
Analysis of data other than certified cost or pricing data.
Type of funding being used.
Differences in quantities or size.
Use of federal supply schedules.
Differences in contractor business size
The requirement must be cancelled and resolicited.
Other than certified cost or pricing data may be used.
Use a cost analysis to evaluate data other than certified cost or pricing data.
Offerors must provide certified cost or pricing data to support the proposed cost.
Past performance information provided directly by the offeror should not be relied upon.
The past performance evaluation satisfies the responsibility determination required under FAR subpart 9.1.
Evaluations should take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies.
Offerors with demonstrated past performance that is neither relevant nor recent must not be removed from further consideration for award.
Analyze each offeror’s profit margin.
Only be conducted by the contract officer (CO).
Review each offeror’s experience on similar projects.
Examine the types and quantities of materials proposed.
Only the top five firms should be included in the competitive range.
A proposal may be included in the competitive range even though it is not among the most highly rated.
Include only those proposals within 20 percent of the most favorable proposal in the competitive range.
Limit the number of proposals to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.
Negotiate prices with only those offerors who are in the competitive range.
Determine whether or not a proposal should be placed in the competitive range.
Identify proposal deficiencies and allow offerors to revise its proposal accordingly.
Discuss aspects of an offeror’s proposal that could, in the opinion of the CO, be altered to materially enhance the proposal’s potential for award.
Discussions allow for revisions to proposals.
Discussions are used to establish the competitive range.
Discussions must be held with only those offerors in the competitive range.
Discussions permit offerors to clarify aspects of the proposal that are deficient.
Obtain the lowest price possible.
Never settle on a price that is outside of the government’s minimum and maximum objective.
Negotiate a contract type with a price providing the greatest incentive for efficient performance.
Negotiate a contract below what the government believes is reasonable for a particular contract requirement while still allowing the contractor to make a profit.
Minimum price position.
Objective price position.
Median price position.
Maximum price position.
Both parties to a negotiation expect movement by the other party.
When the price negotiation is based on price analysis, contract officers (CO) are required to analyze profit.
Before entering into competitive discussions, develop separate minimum, objective, and maximum positions for each proposal.
In competitive discussions, minimum contract requirements cannot be changed unless all offerors remaining in the competitive range have an opportunity to revise their proposal.
Using concessions to split any differences.
Threatening to cancel and resolicit the requirement.
Using other non-price factors to take the focus off price alone.
Establishing an opening position that allows room to compromise.
A reasonable person would consider it to be a bad deal.
The government will exceed its maximum price position.
The negotiations begin to exceed a reasonable amount of time.
The parties cannot agree on price alone, although it is known that a better deal does not exist.