Chapter 6 ORGANIZING FOR SOURCE SELECTION

In any source selection, there must be a source selection authority (SSA), a contracting officer, and one or more evaluators. Sometimes a single person can perform more than one of these roles.

THE SOURCE SELECTION AUTHORITY

The SSA is an individual appointed by the agency head to—among other assigned responsibilities—select the source at the end of the source selection process. If no one else is appointed, then the contracting officer is the SSA. Thus, to use a computing term, the contracting officer is the default SSA.

Who, other than the contracting officer, can be appointed as SSA? There are no governmentwide restrictions absent some sort of conflict of interest. Usually, the more significant the procurement, the higher on the organization chart agencies will go to appoint an SSA.

DUTIES OF THE SOURCE SELECTION AUTHORITY

The SSA must be identified very early in the acquisition cycle in view of the mandatory duties FAR 15.303(b) gives this individual. The FAR provides that the SSA shall

• Establish an evaluation team tailored for the particular acquisition

• Approve the source selection strategy or acquisition plan

• Ensure consistency among the various solicitation provisions

• Consider the recommendations of advisory boards or panels (if any)

• Select the source that will provide the best value.

THE ROLE OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER

Typically, for more routine source selections, the contracting officer is the SSA. He or she will normally have a small group of evaluators to review and evaluate the technical (non-cost) aspects of proposals and one or more assigned persons to perform a cost or price analysis.

Even when the contracting officer is not the SSA, he or she has a key role in the selection process as an advisor to the SSA and others involved in the source selection process.

After release of the solicitation, the contracting officer is always the individual who controls any oral or written contacts with competing contractors.

EVALUATORS

The name given the group of non-cost-factor evaluators differs from agency to agency and sometimes even within agencies. Some of the more common names are

• Technical evaluation panel

• Technical evaluation team

• Proposal evaluation board

• Source selection evaluation board.

FORMAL AND OTHER THAN FORMAL SOURCE SELECTION

Governmentwide regulations at one time distinguished between “formal” source selections and “other than formal” source selections. “Although” this is no longer the case, some individual agency regulations still make this distinction. And some even refer to “other than formal” source selections as informal, an unfortunate choice of a name for a disciplined process.

More formal source selections (i.e., those source selections with a higher dollar value or those otherwise determined to be of particular significance) have more complicated organization structures than merely a small group of evaluators. Figure 6-1 shows an example of one such structure.

FIGURE 6-1
Sample Source Selection Organizational Structure

In some agencies, a separate group of individuals is responsible solely for past performance evaluation. Sometimes this group is known as a performance risk assessment group.

ADVISORS

The duties of the source selection advisory council (SSAC) shown in Figure 6-1 (or an equivalent group in other agency organizational structures) normally include overseeing the operations of the source selection evaluation board and advising the SSA. This advice to the SSA may or may not include a recommendation for award (selection), depending on agency regulations, standard agency practices, or the wishes of the SSA.

Typically, an SSAC consists of military and/or civilian personnel of high grade and stature. For the more formal source selections, agency regulations often recommend that SSAC members be at specific grade levels depending upon the nature and dollar value of the particular acquisition.

In addition to the SSAC or its equivalent, the SSA may have a number of other advisors, including a business advisor (often the contracting officer), a small business advisor, legal counsel, and others.

THE NUMBER OF EVALUATORS AND ADVISORS

Evaluators for any given source selection can range in number from one person to more than 100. In fact, some source selection organizational structures have had as many as 200 people assigned as evaluators and advisors.

There is no evidence available that links the number of people involved in proposal evaluation with the wisdom of a source selection decision. In fact, some suspect that the use of very large numbers of evaluators and advisors can contribute to communication static and to miscommunication between subject matter experts and the SSA. Nonetheless, no matter how large or small the crowd, it is important that proposal evaluators as an entity have the full range of expertise needed to competently address all of the evaluation factors in the solicitation.

For more routine source selections, most agencies have, either by longstanding practice or regulation, established a minimum number of evaluators. Usually this is an odd number (three, five, or seven, for example), which presumably facilitates voting in the event of disagreement.

THE ORIGIN OF EVALUATORS AND ADVISORS

Technical evaluators, cost evaluators, and advisors are chosen because of their expertise. Most are employees of the procuring agency, but persons from other government agencies may be used when appropriate, such as when sufficient expertise is not available in-house, when the agency wants to protect itself from charges of organizational bias, or when other agencies will be the users of the product or service being procured.

Involving the users in the source selection process may later reduce the number of complaints about business decisions made during the source selection process.

USE OF CONTRACTORS AS EVALUATORS AND ADVISORS

Contractor personnel may also be used as evaluators or advisors. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines, as described in FAR Subpart 7.5, provide that contractors may participate as “technical advisors to a source selection board” or may participate as “voting or non-voting members of a source evaluation board.” However, common sense tells us that acquisition planners should work closely with legal counsel when considering the use of contractor personnel as advisors or evaluators. Planners and legal counsel should thoroughly address issues such as conflicts of interest and protection of source selection and proprietary information.

COMPETENCE AND FAIRNESS

Competing contractors have on occasion based protests on the perceived lack of expertise of evaluators or on allegations of evaluator bias. These are rarely successful because protesting contractors have to show incompetence or bias, not just proclaim it. For example, they must show how and where the alleged bias occurred, or how and where the alleged incompetence manifested itself in a way that prejudiced the protestor. Typical of comptroller general opinions on this matter is the following excerpt from a January 2008 opinion:

We have long found that the selection of evaluators is a matter within the discretion of the agency, and, accordingly, we do not review allegations … concerning the evaluators’ qualifications or the composition of evaluation panels absent a showing of possible fraud, conflict of interest, or actual bias on the part of evaluation officials (IMLCORP LLC; Wattre Corp., B-310582 et al., January 9, 2008).

This is not to say that there have not been some successful protests based on allegations of bias or incompetence. In one instance, an offeror’s proposal in a competition that could have resulted in “outsourcing” of work that was being done by government personnel was found by government evaluators to be unacceptable. However, the offeror pointed out that a number of the evaluators who had found the proposal to be unacceptable stood to lose their jobs if the proposal had been found to be acceptable. The potential for bias was obviously so great that the agency determined that a new evaluation by other evaluators was necessary.

Agencies should take evaluator competency and potential conflicts of interest seriously.

When functional supervisors are asked to furnish someone to be an evaluator for an acquisition, they may be tempted to designate the person they can most afford to do without during the source selection process. Source selection authorities and contracting officers should always insist on highly qualified personnel, not just as protection against a protest, but to maximize the chances that the real best value is identified and chosen.

SOURCE SELECTION RULES

Regardless of the size and structure of the organization established for the source selection, and regardless of the grade levels of those involved, the source selection rules and the source selection issues described in this book remain the same.