[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 21, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25440-25443]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12628]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
48 CFR Parts 1515 and 1552
[FRL-5505-3]
Acquisition Regulation; Source Selection Process
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
revise its acquisition regulation (48 CFR Chapter 15) coverage on the
source selection process. EPA is aware that Part 15 of the Federal
Acquisition Regulation is currently undergoing revision. The Agency
believes that its changes will not conflict with any subsequent
revisions to Part 15. Additionally, the Agency believes that the
changes to its acquisition regulation are needed now as an interim
measure to streamline the process and empower Contracting Officers at
EPA. This rule is also necessary to implement portions of the Federal
Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994.
DATE: Comments should be submitted not later than July 22, 1996.
[[Page 25441]]
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted to the contact listed
below at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Acquisition Management (3802F), 401 M Street SW., Washington,
DC 20460. Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by
sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: Senzel.Louise@epamail.epa.gov.
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use
of special characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data
will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1 format or ASCII
file format. No Confidential Business Information (CBI) should be
submitted through e-mail. Electronic comments on this proposed rule may
be filed on-line at many Federal Depository Libraries.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Louise Senzel, Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Acquisition Management (3802F), 401 M
Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: (202) 260-6204.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Executive Order 12866
The proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action for the
purposes of Executive Order 12866; therefore, no review is required by
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because this proposed
rule does not contain information collection requirements that require
the approval of OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The EPA certifies that this proposed rule does not exert a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The requirements to contractors under the proposed rule impose no
reporting, record-keeping, or any compliance costs.
D. Unfunded Mandates
This proposed rule will not impose unfunded mandates on state or
local entities, or others.
E. Regulated Entities
EPA contractors are entities potentially affected by this action.
Specifically, those entities competing under solicitations for
negotiated procurements will be affected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Regulated entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................. EPA Contractors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1515 and 1552
Government procurement.
Authority: The provisions of this regulation are issued under 5
U.S.C. 301; Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 486(c).
Dated: May 7, 1996.
Betty L. Bailey,
Director, Ofice of Acquisition Management.
Therefore, 48 CFR chapter 15 is proposed to be amended as set forth
below:
PARTS 1515 AND 1552--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citations for parts 1515 and 1552 continue to read
as follows:
Authority: Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended, 40 U.S.C.
486(c).
Sec. 1515.407 [Amended]
2. Section 1515.407 is amended by removing paragraph (a)(1) and by
redesignating paragraphs (a) (2) and (3) as (a) (1) and (2).
3. Section 1515.604 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (c) and
(d) to read as follows:
1515.604 Responsibilities and duties.
* * * * *
(a) Source Selection Official. The Source Selection Official (SSO)
is the official responsible for overall management of the source
selection process. Duties of the SSO include, but are not limited to,
appointing members and chairpersons of the Source Evaluation Board, the
Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP), and the Business Evaluation Panel
(BEP); and approving solicitation related documents. However, the
Contracting Officer is responsible for approving amendments to
solicitation documents. The SSO may waive the requirement in
1515.612(a)(v) for at least one member of the TEP to be an individual
not involved in managing the current contract. The SSO also approves
the competitive range determination and makes the source selection
decision.
* * * * *
(c) Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP). The Program Office has the
responsibility for developing the technical evaluation criteria and
statement of work for the solicitation. The TEP has the responsibility
for evaluating the technical aspects of the offerors' technical
proposals. Based on the recommendation of the Program Office, the SSO
has the discretion of assigning this evaluation responsibility to the
Project Officer, if appropriate, or to the TEP. When offerors' past
performance is evaluated as part of the technical proposal evaluation
process, the past performance evaluation shall be conducted by the TEP,
or by the Contracting Officer and the Project Officer. Based on input
from the Project Officer, the Contracting Officer has the discretion of
assigning this responsibility to the TEP or to the Contracting Officer
and Project Officer.
(d) Business Evaluation Panel (BEP). (1) The Contracts Office has
the responsibility for reviewing solicitation evaluation criteria and
the Statement of Work from a business perspective; evaluating the
business, pricing, and contractual aspects of the offerors' business
and technical proposals; and examining other factors such as the
responsibility of the offerors. Based on the recommendation of the
Contracting Officer, the SSO has the discretion to designate these
responsibilities to the Contracting Officer or designating a BEP.
Sections 1515.612(a) (vi) and (vii) are applicable only when the SSO
has designated a BEP. (2) When no BEP is convened, the Contracting
Officer shall perform a preliminary cost evaluation of each offeror's
cost/price proposal to identify any cost elements that appear
unreasonable or questionable. When cost analysis is employed, the
Contracting Officer shall perform a detailed cost analysis of the
business proposal which includes an evaluation of the offeror's
subcontracting program, management structure, and any other relevant
factors which may prevent award to an offeror. This analysis may be
included in a separate report, in the competitive range determination,
or in the pre/post-negotiation memorandum.
4. Section 1515.604-70 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read
as follows:
1515.604-70 Personal conflicts of interest.
* * * * *
(c) Each EPA employee (including special employees) involved in
source evaluation and selection is required to comply with the Office
of Government Ethics ethics provisions at 5 CFR part 2635.
5. Section 1515.605 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)
and adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
1515.605 Evaluation factors.
* * * * *
(a) The Contracting Officer shall insert the provisions at
1552.215-70, ``EPA Source Evaluation and Selection Procedures--
Negotiated Procurement'' and either: the provision in 1552.215-
[[Page 25442]]
71, ``Evaluation Factors for Award,'' where all evaluation factors
other than cost or price when combined are significantly more important
than cost or price; or the provision in Alternate I to 1552.215-71,
where all evaluation factors other than cost or price when combined are
significantly less important than cost or price; or the provision in
Alternate II to 1552.215-71, where award will be made to the offeror
with the lowest-evaluated cost or price whose technical proposal meets
the minimum needs of the Government; or the provision in Alternate III
where all evaluation factors other than cost or price when combined are
approximately equal to cost or price. The Contracting Officer may use
provisions substantially the same as 1552.215-71, Alternate I to
1552.215-71, Alternate II to 1552.215-71, or Alternate III to 1552.215-
71 without requesting a deviation to the EPAAR.
(b) Technical evaluation criteria should be prepared in accordance
with FAR 15.605 and inserted into paragraph (b) of the provision at
1552.215-71, Alternate I, and Alternate III. If technical evaluation
criteria are used in Alternate II, the criteria should be prepared in
accordance with FAR 15.605 and inserted into paragraph (b). When past
performance is to be used as an evaluation factor, the Contracting
Officer must develop a criteria for evaluating past performance and
include such criteria in section M of the solicitation.
(c) Evaluation Methodologies. Evaluation criteria may be developed
using methodologies other than numerical scoring, e.g., adjectival
ratings or color scoring. The relative importance of the evaluation
criteria must be clearly identified in the solicitation. The
Contracting Officer should identify and prepare evaluation criteria
consistent with FAR 15.605.
6. Section 1515.608 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1),
(b)(1)(ii), and (b)(2)(i); by adding paragraph (b)(3); by removing
paragraph (c) and by redesignating paragraphs (d) and (e) as (c) and
(d) to read as follows:
1515.608 Proposal evaluation.
(a) * * *
(1) Technical proposals shall be evaluated solely on the factors
specified in the solicitation and in accordance with FAR 15.608.
Additionally, the evaluation of technical proposals (including past
performance factors) shall be accomplished using the scoring plan shown
below or one specifically developed for the solicitation. Contracting
Officers may request that the TEP also indicate whether proposals are
acceptable or unacceptable, and/or whether the offerors' response to
individual criteria are acceptable or unacceptable.
Scoring Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value Descriptive statement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.............................. The factor is not addressed, or is
totally deficient and without merit.
1.............................. The factor is addressed, but contains
deficiencies and/or weaknesses that
can be corrected only by major or
significant changes to relevant
portions of the proposal, or the
factor is addressed so minimally or
vaguely that there are widespread
information gaps. In addition, because
of the deficiencies, weaknesses, and/
or information gaps, serious concerns
exist on the part of the TEP about the
offeror's ability to perform the
required work.
2.............................. Information related to the factor is
incomplete, unclear, or indicates an
inadequate approach to, or
understanding of the factor. The TEP
believes there is question as to
whether the offeror would be able to
perform satisfactorily.
3.............................. The response to the factor is adequate.
Overall, it meets the specifications
and requirements, such that the TEP
believes that the offeror could
perform to meet the Government's
minimum requirements.
4.............................. The response to the factor is good with
some superior features. Information
provided is generally clear, and the
approach is acceptable with the
possibility of more than adequate
performance.
5.............................. The response to the factor is superior
in most features. The goal of the
technical evaluation is to understand
each offeror's proposal and to assess
each proposal relative to the
specified evaluation factors. The TEP
report(s) should address any perceived
strengths, as well as any perceived
weaknesses or deficiencies, and risks
associated with the offerors'
performance. Scores may or may not
change from the initial evaluation to
the supplemental evaluation, depending
on the offeror's response to
interrogatories. The supplemental TEP
report must explain the rationale for
no change in score as well as any
decrease or increase in score as a
result of the offeror's response to
interrogatories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) Any interrogatories the Contracting Officer should submit to
offerors to clarify their technical proposals to address any
weaknesses, deficiencies, or questions associated with their technical
proposals. The Contracting Officer may review the technical proposals
and TEP evaluation, and submit any additional interrogatories deemed
appropriate.
(2)(i) A statement that the respective technical evaluation panel
members are free from actual or potential personal conflicts of
interest and are in compliance with the Office of Government Ethics
ethics provisions at 5 CFR Part 2635.
* * * * *
(3) The Contracting Officer may release the cost/price proposals to
the entire TEP or solely to the TEP Chairperson, after the TEP has
completed its evaluation of initial proposals. The TEP or Chairperson
should evaluate cost/price proposals to determine whether the offerors'
cost/price proposals adequately reflect their technical proposals and
the requirements of the solicitation, and demonstrate that the proposed
price or cost provides an adequate understanding of the requirements of
the solicitation. Any inconsistencies between the proposals and the
solicitation requirements should be identified. Any inconsistencies
between the cost and technical proposals should also be identified.
* * * * *
7. Section 1515.609 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
1515.609 Competitive range.
(a) * * *
(b) * * *
(c)(1) When a single proposal is the only proposal in the
competitive range, as part of the required discussion in the
competitive range determination, Contracting Officers shall address at
a minimum the following factors: whether the requirement could have
been broken up into smaller components; whether the solicitation
provided adequate response time; whether the requirement could have
been satisfied with reduced staffing levels (discussion may be combined
with the first factor); and if applicable, whether the work required
onsite could otherwise be performed at a contractor's facility,
avoiding the cost and logistical implications of relocating employees.
(2) In cases where only a single proposal has been received and a
competitive range determination has not been prepared, the discussion
of the reasons for receipt of the single proposal which otherwise would
be contained in the competitive range determination shall be included
in the source selection document. The discussion in the source
[[Page 25443]]
selection document at a minimum shall address the factors referenced in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(3) The Contracting Officer shall provide a copy of the competitive
range determination or source selection document to the Competition
Advocate for review and concurrence prior to approval.
8. Section 1515.611 is revised to read as follows:
1515.611 Best and final offers.
The Contracting Officer shall establish a common cut-off date for
receipt of revised proposals and/or confirmations of negotiations (best
and final offers) upon completion of negotiations.
9. Section 1515.612 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) (iii),
(iv) and (v); and by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
1515.612 Formal source selection.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) SEB Membership--The SSO will determine the organizational
levels of the individuals to serve on the SEB.
(iv) TEP Chairperson--The SSO will determine, based on the
recommendation of the requesting program office, the Chairperson of the
TEP. For recompetes or follow-on contracts, the Chairperson should
normally not be the incumbent contract's Project Officer.
(v) TEP Membership--At least two members, in addition to the
Project Officer, who are knowledgeable of the procurement's technical
aspects. If the procurement is a follow-on to an existing contract, at
least one of the TEP members should be someone who is not involved in
managing the current contract, preferably from outside of the program
division which originated the requirement. See 1515.605(a) for waiver
of this requirement.
* * * * *
(c) Source selection plan. No separate source selection plan is
required. The Contracting Officer may include the information required
by FAR 15.612(c) in the individual acquisition plan.
10. Section 1552.215-70 is revised to read as follows:
1552.215-70 EPA Source Selection and Selection Procedures--Negotiated
Procurements (XX 1996)
As prescribed in 1515.605, insert the following provision.
EPA Source Selection and Selection Procedures--Negotiated Procurements
(XX 1996)
(a) The Government will perform source selection in accordance
with FAR part 15 and the EPA Source Evaluation and Selection
Procedures in EPAAR Part 1515 (48 CFR part 1515). The significant
features of this procedure are:
(1) The Government will perform either cost analysis or price
analysis of the offeror's cost/business proposal in accordance with
FAR parts 15 and 31, as appropriate. In addition, the Government
will also evaluate proposals to determine contract cost or price
realism. Cost or price realism relates to an offeror's demonstrating
that the proposed cost or price provides an adequate reflection of
the offeror's understanding of the requirements of this
solicitation, i.e., that the cost or price is not unrealistically
low or unreasonably high.
(2) The Government will evaluate technical proposals as
specified in 1552.215-71, Evaluation Factors for Award.
(b) In addition to evaluation of the previously discussed
elements, the Government will consider in any award decision the
responsibility factors set forth in FAR part 9.
(End of Provision)
11. Section 1552.215-71 is revised as follows:
1552.215-71 Evaluation Factors for Award.
As prescribed in 1515.605, insert one of the following provisions.
Evaluation Factors for Award (XX 1996)
(a) The Government will make award to the responsible offeror(s)
whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is most advantageous to
the Government, cost or price and other factors considered. For this
solicitation, all evaluation factors other than cost or price when
combined are significantly more important than cost or price.
(b) Technical Evaluation Criteria.
(End of Provision)
Evaluation Factors for Award (XX 1996) Alternate I (XX 96)
(a) The Government will make award to the responsible offeror(s)
whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is most advantageous to
the Government, cost or price, and other factors considered. For
this solicitation, all evaluation factors other than cost or price
when combined are significantly less important than cost or price.
(b) Technical Evaluation Criteria.
(End of Provision)
Evaluation Factors for Award--Proposal Meets the Minimum Needs of the
Government With the Lowest Evaluated Cost/Price. Alternate II (XX 1996)
(a) The Government will make award to the lowest-evaluated cost
or price, technically acceptable, responsible offeror whose offer
meets the minimum needs of the Government. In the event that there
are two or more technically acceptable, equal price (cost) offers,
the Government will consider other factors, as listed below in
descending order of importance:
(b) Technical Evaluation Criteria.
(End of Provision)
Evaluation Factors for Award (XX 1996) Alternate III (XX 96)
(a) The Government will make award to the responsible offeror(s)
whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is most advantageous to
the Government, cost or price, and other factors considered. For
this solicitation, all evaluation factors other than cost or price
when combined are approximately equal to cost or price.
(b) Technical Evaluation Criteria.
(End of Provision)
1552.215-72 [Removed]
12. Section 1552.215-72 is removed.
[FR Doc. 96-12628 Filed 5-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
