15.305 Proposal evaluation
Source: FAR 15.305 on acquisition.gov
FAR 15.305 requires agencies to evaluate proposals strictly on solicitation criteria, thoroughly document findings, and fairly assess cost, technical, and past performance factors.
Overview
FAR 15.305 outlines the procedures and requirements for evaluating proposals in competitive negotiated procurements. It mandates that agencies assess proposals based solely on the factors and subfactors specified in the solicitation, using any appropriate rating method. The evaluation must be thoroughly documented, including strengths, weaknesses, and risks. Key areas of evaluation include cost or price, past performance, technical capability, and small business subcontracting. The regulation also addresses how to handle offerors with no past performance, the use of cost information, and the evaluation of joint ventures. The source selection authority retains the right to reject all proposals if it serves the Government’s best interest, and there are restrictions on the use of support contractor personnel in evaluations.
Key Rules
- Evaluation Based on Solicitation Criteria
- Proposals must be evaluated only on the factors and subfactors listed in the solicitation, using documented and consistent methods.
- Cost or Price Evaluation
- Price reasonableness is usually established by competition for fixed-price contracts; cost realism analysis is required for cost-reimbursement contracts.
- Past Performance Evaluation
- Agencies must consider the relevance, context, and trends of past performance, including for joint ventures and key personnel, and cannot penalize offerors with no relevant history.
- Technical Evaluation
- Technical proposals are assessed for ability to meet requirements, with results documented in the source selection records.
- Small Business Subcontracting
- Solicitations must favorably rate small business subcontracting plans as specified in FAR 15.304.
- Rejection of Proposals
- The authority to reject all proposals is reserved if it benefits the Government.
Responsibilities
- Contracting Officers: Ensure evaluations are based on solicitation criteria, document all findings, and follow agency procedures for cost information and support contractor use.
- Contractors: Submit proposals addressing all specified factors, provide accurate past performance data, and comply with small business subcontracting requirements.
- Agencies: Oversee evaluation process, ensure compliance with documentation and procedural requirements, and manage support contractor involvement.
Practical Implications
- Ensures fairness and transparency in proposal evaluation.
- Requires thorough documentation to support award decisions and withstand protests.
- Contractors must carefully address all evaluation criteria and provide comprehensive past performance and subcontracting information.
(a) Proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the offeror’s ability to perform the prospective contract successfully. An agency shall evaluate competitive proposals and then assess their relative qualities solely on the factors and subfactors specified in the solicitation. Evaluations may be conducted using any rating method or combination of methods, including color or adjectival ratings, numerical weights, and ordinal rankings. The relative strengths, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and risks supporting proposal evaluation shall be documented in the contract file.
(1) Cost or price evaluation. Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. Therefore, when contracting on a firm-fixed-price or fixed-price with economic price adjustment basis, comparison of the proposed prices will usually satisfy the requirement to perform a price analysis, and a cost analysis need not be performed. In limited situations, a cost analysis may be appropriate to establish reasonableness of the otherwise successful offeror's price (see 15.403-1(c)(1)(i)(C)). When contracting on a cost-reimbursement basis, evaluations shall include a cost realism analysis to determine what the Government should realistically expect to pay for the proposed effort, the offeror's understanding of the work, and the offeror's ability to perform the contract. Cost realism analyses may also be used on fixed-price incentive contracts or, in exceptional cases, on other competitive fixed-price-type contracts (see 15.404-1(d)(3)). (See 37.115 for uncompensated overtime evaluation.) The contracting officer shall document the cost or price evaluation.
(2) Past performance evaluation.
(i) Past performance information is one indicator of an offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully. The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. This comparative assessment of past performance information is separate from the responsibility determination required under subpart 9.1.
(ii) The solicitation shall describe the approach for evaluating past performance, including evaluating offerors with no relevant performance history, and shall provide offerors an opportunity to identify past or current contracts (including Federal, State, and local government and private) for efforts similar to the Government requirement. The solicitation shall also authorize offerors to provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror’s corrective actions. The Government shall consider this information, as well as information obtained from any other sources, when evaluating the offeror’s past performance. The source selection authority shall determine the relevance of similar past performance information.
(iii) The evaluation should take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition.
(iv) In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.
(v) The evaluation should include the past performance of offerors in complying with subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns (see subpart 19.7).
(vi) For offerors that are joint ventures, the evaluation shall take into account past performance of the joint venture. If the joint venture does not demonstrate past performance for award, the contracting officer shall consider the past performance of each party to the joint venture.
(3) Technical evaluation. When tradeoffs are performed (see 15.101-1), the source selection records shall include-
(i) An assessment of each offeror’s ability to accomplish the technical requirements; and
(ii) A summary, matrix, or quantitative ranking, along with appropriate supporting narrative, of each technical proposal using the evaluation factors.
(4) Cost information. Cost information may be provided to members of the technical evaluation team in accordance with agency procedures.
(5) Small business subcontracting evaluation. Solicitations must be structured to give offers from small business concerns the highest rating for the evaluation factors in 15.304(c)(3)(ii) and (c)(4).
(b) The source selection authority may reject all proposals received in response to a solicitation, if doing so is in the best interest of the Government.
(c) For restrictions on the use of support contractor personnel in proposal evaluation, see 37.203(d).