vised proposals submitted during the acquisition:

(i) The answers to questions do not have a substantial impact on the proposal (see 315.609(i));

(ii) The "best and final" offers are not materially different from the original proposals; or

(iii) The rankings of the offerors are not affected because the revisions to the proposals are relatively minor.

(2) The chairperson, with the concurrence of the contracting officer, may decide not to have the panel evaluate the revised proposals. Whenever this decision is made, it must be fully documented by the chairperson and approved by the contracting officer.

(3) When technical evaluation panel meetings are considered necessary by the contracting officer, the attendance of evaluators is mandatory. When the chairperson determines that an evaluator's failure to attend the meetings is prejudicial to the evaluation, the chairperson shall replace the individual after discussing the situation with the contracting officer and obtaining his/her concurrence and the approval of the program official responsible for appointing the panel members (see 315.608-71(b)(4)).

(4) Whenever continuity of the evaluation process is not possible, and either new evaluators are selected or a reduced panel is decided upon, each proposal which is being reviewed at any stage of the acquisition shall be reviewed at that stage by all members of the revised panel unless it is impractical to do so because of the receipt of an unusually large number of proposals.

(f) Use of outside evaluators. (1) The technical evaluation panel shall be composed of Government employees except when outside evaluators possess a required expertise which is not available within the Government, or as required by law.

(2) The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA) are required to have a peer review of research and development contracts in accordance with Pub. L. (Pub. L.) 93-352 as amended by Pub. L. 94-63; 42 U.S.C. 289 1-4. This legislation requires peer review of projects and

proposals, and not more than onefourth of the members of a peer review group may be officers or employees of the United States. NIH and ADAMHA are therefore exempt from the provisions of 315.608-71 to the extent that 42 U.S.C. 289 1-4 applies.

[50 FR 23130, May 31, 1985, and 50 FR 38004, Sept. 19, 1985, as amended at 53 FR 15563, May 2, 1988]

315.608-72 Procedures for handling and disclosing proposals.

(a) The procedures and notice specified in FAR 15.413-2 and 315.413-2 shall be used in handling solicited proposals and for disclosing proposals outside the Government for evaluation purposes. (For unsolicited proposals, see FAR 15.509 and 315.509.)

(b) Decisions to disclose proposals outside the Government for evaluation purposes shall be made by the chief official having programmatic responsibility for the acquisition, after consultation with the contracting officer and in accordance with operating division procedures. The decision to disclose either a solicited or unsolicited proposal outside the Government for the purpose of obtaining an evaluation shall take into consideration the avoidance of organizational conflicts of interest and any competitive relationship between the submitter of the proposal and the prospective evaluator(s).

(c) When it is determined to disclose a solicited proposal outside the Government for evaluation purposes, the following or similar conditions shall be included in the written agreement with the evaluator(s) prior to disclosure (see FAR 15.413-2(f) and 315.413–2(f)). Also, a review must be made to ensure that the notice required by FAR 15.413-2(e) is affixed to the proposal before it is disclosed to the evaluator(s).

CONDITIONS FOR EVALUATING PROPOSALS

The evaluator agrees to use the data (trade secrets, business data, and technical data) contained in the proposal only for evaluation purposes.

This requirement does not apply to data obtained from another source without restriction.

Any notice or legend placed on the proposal by either the Department or the submitter of the proposal shall be applied to any reproduction or abstract provided to the

evaluator or made by the evaluator. Upon completion of the evaluation, the evaluator shall return the Government-furnished copy of the proposal or abstract, and all copies thereof, to the Departmental office which initially furnished the proposal for evaluation.

Unless authorized by the Department's initiating office, the evaluator shall not contact the submitter of the proposal concerning any apsects of its contents.

The evaluator will be obligated to obtain commitments from its employees and subcontractors, if any, in order to effect the purposes of these conditions.

[50 FR 23131, May 31, 1985, and 50 FR 38004, Sept. 19, 1985]

315.608-73 Receipt of proposals.

(a) After the closing date set by the solicitation for the receipt of proposals, the contracting officer will use a transmittal memorandum to forward the technical proposals to the project officer or chairperson for evaluation. The business proposals will be retained by the contracting officer for evaluation (see 315.608-77).

(b) The transmittal memorandum to the chairperson shall include at least the following:

(1) A list of the names of the organizations submitting proposals;

(2) A reference to 315.604(d) on the need to preserve the integrity of the source selection process;

(3) A requirement for a technical evaluation report in accordance with 315.608-76; and

(4) The establishment of a date for receipt of the technical evaluation report.

[50 FR 23131, May 31, 1985, and 50 FR 38004, Sept. 19, 1985]

315.608-74 Convening the technical evaluation panel.

(a) Normally, the technical evaluation panel will convene to evaluate the proposals. However, there may be situations when the contracting officer determines that it is not feasible for the panel to convene. Whenever this decision is made, care must be taken to assure that the technical review is closely monitored to produce acceptable results.

(b) When a panel is convened, the chairperson is responsible for the control of the technical proposals provided

to him/her by the contracting officer for use during the evaluation process. The chairperson will generally distribute the technical proposals at the initial panel meeting and will establish procedures for securing the proposals whenever they are not being evaluated to insure their confidentiality. After the evaluation is complete, all proposals must be returned to the contracting officer, destroyed or filed in an appropriate manner to maintain the confidential nature of the data.

(c) The contracting officer shall address the initial meeting of the panel and state the basic rules for conducting the evaluation. The contracting officer shall provide written guidance to the panel if he/she is unable to attend the initial panel meeting. The guidance should include:

(1) An explanation of conflicts of interest (see 315.603-71(d));

(2) The necessity to read and understand the solicitation, especially the statement of work and evaluation criteria, prior to reading the proposals;

(3) The need for evaluators to restrict the review to only the solicitation and the contents of the technical proposals;

(4) The need for each evaluator to review all the proposals;

(5) The need to watch for ambiguities, inconsistencies, errors, and deficiencies which should be surfaced during the evaluation process;

(6) An explanation of the evaluation process and what will be expected of the evaluators throughout the process;

(7) The need for the evaluators to be aware of the requirement to have complete written documentation of the individual strengths and weaknesses which affect the scoring of the proposals; and

(8) An instruction directing the evaluators that, until the award is made, information concerning the acquisition must not be disclosed to any person not directly involved in the evaluation process.

[50 FR 23131, May 31, 1985, and 50 FR 38004, Sept. 19, 1985]

315.608-75 Rating and ranking of proposals.

The evaluators will individually read each proposal, describe tentative strengths and weaknesses, and develop

preliminary scores in relation to each evaluation criterion set forth in the solicitation. The evaluators will use the rating sheets either in the technical evaluation plan or approved by the contracting officer when a technical evaluation plan is not required (see 315.608-70). After this has been accomplished, the evaluators shall discuss in detail the individual strengths and weaknesses described by each evaluator and, if possible, arrive at a common understanding of the major strengths and weaknesses and the potential for correcting each offeror's weakness(es). Each evaluator will score each proposal, and then the technical evaluation panel will collectively rank the proposals. Generally, ranking will be determined by adding the numerical scores assigned to the evaluation criteria and finding the average for each offeror. The evaluators should then identify whether each proposal is acceptable or unacceptable. Predetermined cutoff scores shall not be employed.

[50 FR 23131, May 31, 1985, and 50 FR 38004, Sept. 19, 1985]

A technical evaluation report shall be prepared and furnished to the contracting officer by the chairperson and maintained as a permanent record in the contract file. The report must reflect the ranking of the proposals and identify each proposal as acceptable or unacceptable in accordance with 315.608-75. The report must also include a narrative evaluation specifying the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal, a copy of each rating sheet, and any reservations, qualifications, areas to be addressed that might bear upon the selection of sources for negotiation and award. Concrete technical reasons supporting a determination of unacceptability with regard to any proposal must be included. The report should also include specific points and questions which are to be raised in discussions or negotiations.

or

[50 FR 23132, May 31, 1985, and 50 FR 38004, Sept. 19, 1985]

315.608-77 Evaluation of business proposals.

(a) The contracting officer shall evaluate the business proposals concurrently with the evaluation of the technical proposals. The contracting officer must adhere to the requirements for cost or price analysis included in FAR 15.805-1 for each business proposal in the competitive range. An audit report may be required in accordance with FAR 15.805-5 and 315.805-5. The contracting officer must determine the extent of analysis in each case depending on the amount of the proposal, the technical complexity and related cost or price, and cost realism. The contracting officer should request the project officer to analyze such items as the number of labor hours proposed for various labor categories; the mix of labor hours and categories of labor in relation to the technical requirements of the project; the kinds and quantities of material, equipment, and supplies; types, numbers, and hours/days of proposed consultants; logic of proposed subcontracting; analysis of the travel proposed including number of trips, locations, purpose, and travelers; and kinds and quantities of data processing. The project officer shall provide his/her opinion as to whether these elements are necessary and reasonable for efficient contract performance. Exceptions to proposed elements shall be supported by adequate rationale to allow for effective negotiations. The contracting officer should also request the assistance of a cost/price analyst when considered necessary. In all cases, the negotiation memorandum (see 315.672) must include the rationale used in determining that the price or cost is fair and reasonable.

(b) The contracting officer must appraise the management capability of the offeror to perform the required work in a timely manner. In making this appraisal, the contracting officer should consider factors such as the offeror's management organization, past performance, reputation for reliability, availability of the required facilities, and cost controls. This information is to be used by the contracting

officer to determine the offeror's responsibility.

[50 FR 23132, May 31, 1975, and 50 FR 38004, Sept. 19, 1985]

315.609 Competitive range.

(a) A proposal must be included in the competitive range unless there is no real possibility that it can be improved to the point where it becomes the most acceptable.

(e) In certain circumstances, when deciding which proposals should be included in the competitive range, the contracting officer may request that the technical evaluation panel review the cost or price data. Typical situations which may necessitate this review include a suspected "buy-in," large differences in cost or price among the proposals, proposals receiving high technical ratings which have relatively high costs, and proposals receiving low technical ratings which have relatively low costs. The resultant comparison of cost or price to technical factors and the determination of cost or price realism should assist the contracting officer in deciding which proposals are to be included in the competitive range.

(f) All determinations regarding the inclusion or exclusion of proposals in the competitive range must be completely documented, including the salient reasons for the determinations, and set forth in the negotiation memorandum.

(g) Some of the factors which the contracting officer should consider in determining the competitive range are:

(1) The relative importance of cost or price as compared to technical factors in accordance with the solicitation provisions required in 315.406-5(c);

(2) The susceptibility of significantly reducing a proposal with an unreasonable high price or cost without undermining the technical merit if the offeror otherwise has reasonable

a

that are factual and convincing and are consistent with the evaluation criteria set forth in the solicitation. Every statement should be reviewed carefully to eliminate any doubts as to the unacceptability of a proposal;

(2) All recommendations to exclude proposals from the competitive range are supported by persuasive rationale and sufficient facts to substantiate a judgment that meaningful discussions are not possible or there is no reasonable chance of the proposal being selected for award;

(3) Those cases where only one organization is found to be technically acceptable are fully scrutinized; and

(4) Unacceptable proposals contain "information" deficiencies which are so material as to preclude any possibility of upgrading the proposal to a competitive level except through major revisions and additions which would be tantamount to the submission of another proposal.

(i) The contracting officer and project officer should discuss the uncertainties and/or deficiencies that are included in the technical evaluation report for each proposal in the competitive range. Technical questions should be developed by the project officer and/ or the technical evaluation panel and should be included in the technical evaluation report. The management and cost or price questions should be prepared by the contracting officer with assistance from the project officer and/or panel as required. The method of requesting offerors in the competitive range to submit the additional information will vary depending on the complexity of the questions, the extent of additional information requested, the time needed to analyze the responses, and the time frame for making the award. However, to the extent practicable, all questions and answers should be in writing. Each offeror in the competitive range shall be given an equitable period of time for preparation of responses to questions to the extent practicable. The questions should be developed so as to disclose the ambiguities, uncertainties, and deficiencies of the offeror (see FAR 15.610(c)).

315.610 Written or oral discussions.

(b) The contracting officer, with the support of personnel who evaluated the technical proposals, and, if necessary, cost analysts, attorneys, etc., must conduct written or oral discussions with all responsible offerors within the competitive range.

(d) Careful judgment must be exercised in determining the extent of discussions. In some cases, more than one round of discussions with all the offerors within the competitive range may be required. The time available, the expense and administrative limitations, and the complexity, size, and significance of the acquisition should all be considered in deciding on the type, duration, and depth of the discussions.

315.611 Best and final offers.

(b)(5) Notice that confirmation of a prior offer should be specifically stated as a final offer; and

(6) Notice that all revisions to former offers should be submitted on Standard Form 1411, Contract Pricing Proposal Cover Sheet, and should be fully documented.

(c) "Best and final" offers are subject to a final evaluation of price or cost and other salient factors by the contracting officer and project officer with assistance from a cost/price analyst, and an evaluation of technical factors by the technical evaluation panel, as necessary. Proposals may be technically rescored and reranked by the technical evaluation panel and a technical evaluation report prepared. To the extent practicable, the evaluation shall be performed by the same evaluators who reviewed the original proposals (see 315.670-).

(e) Of particular importance in the award of research or development contracts, including those with educational institutions, is the competence of key personnel in the specific field of science or technology involved, as reflected in the proposal. However, awards should not be made for research and development capabilities that exceed those needed for the successful performance of the particular project.

315.670 Negotiation with the selected

source.

(a) After selection of the successful proposal, a limited negotiation with the selected offeror may be conducted if deemed necessary. However, no factor which could have any effect on the selection process may be introduced into the negotiation after the common cutoff date for receipt of best and final offers. The negotiation shall not in any way prejudice the competitive interests or right of the unsuccessful offerors. Negotiations with the selected offeror shall be restricted to definitizing the final agreement on terms and conditions; e.g., assuming none of these factors were involved in the selection process, negotiation could include such topics as payment provisions, patent rights, rights in data, property provisions, labor rates, indirect cost rates, and fees. Prior to conducting the limited negotiation, the contracting officer shall approve a written determination citing both the specific issues to be discussed and the rationale showing that the negotiations shall not have any effect on the selection process.

(b) Caution must be exercised by the contracting officer to insure that the negotiation is not used to change the requirement contained in the solicitation, nor to make any other changes which would impact on the source selection decision. Whenever a material change occurs in the requirements as a result of the negotiation, the competition must be reopened and all offerors submitting "best and final" offers must be given an opportunity to resubmit proposals based on the revised requirements. Whenever there is a question as to whether a change is material, the contracting officer should obtain the advice of technical personnel and legal counsel before reopening the competition. Significant changes in the offeror's cost proposal may also necessitate a reopening of competition if such changes alter the factors involved in the original selection process.

(c) Should negotiations beyond those specified in (a) above be required for any reason, discussions must be reopened with all offerors submitting "best and final" offers.

(d) Upon completion of the negotiation, the contracting officer shall ob