“ProTech” Source Selection Under FAR Subpart 16.5 16.500 Scope of subpart. (a) This subpart prescribes policies and procedures for making awards of indefinite-delivery contracts and establishes a preference for making multiple awards of indefinite-quantity contracts. (b) This subpart does not limit the use of other than competitive procedures authorized by Part 6. (c) Nothing in this subpart restricts the authority of the General Services Administration (GSA) to enter into schedule, multiple award, or task or delivery order contracts under any other provision of law. Therefore, GSA regulations and the coverage for the Federal Supply Schedule program in subpart 8.4 and Part 38 take precedence over this subpart. (d) The statutory multiple award preference implemented by this subpart does not apply to architect-engineer contracts subject to the procedures in subpart 36.6. However, agencies are not precluded from making multiple awards for architect-engineer services using the procedures in this subpart, provided the selection of contractors and placement of orders are consistent with subpart 36.6.

INDEFINITE-DELIVERY CONTRACTS Three types of indefinite-delivery contracts: definite-quantity contracts, requirements contracts, and indefinite-quantity contracts “Task-order contract” means a contract for services that does not procure or specify a firm quantity of services (other than a minimum or maximum quantity) and that provides for the issuance of orders for the performance of tasks during the period of the contract. 16.502 Definite-quantity contracts. (a) Description. A definite-quantity contract provides for delivery of a definite quantity of specific supplies or services for a fixed period, with deliveries or performance to be scheduled at designated locations upon order. 16.503 Requirements contracts. (a) Description. A requirements contract provides for filling all actual purchase requirements of designated Government activities for supplies or services during a specified contract period (from one contractor), with deliveries or performance to be scheduled by placing orders with the contractor. 16.504 Indefinite-quantity contracts. (a) Description. An indefinite-quantity contract provides for an indefinite quantity, within stated limits, of supplies or services during a fixed period. The Government places orders for individual requirements. Quantity limits may be stated as number of units or as dollar values.

WHAT IS PROTECH? (Professional & Technical Services) Professional and Technical (ProTech) services is a suite of contracting vehicles organized into five Domains: Oceans Fisheries Satellite Weather Enterprise Operations ProTech is a suite of contracting vehicles that consists of Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) multiple award contracts, multiple award and single award Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs), and other contract types organized into five Domains: Satellite, Fisheries, Oceans, Weather, and Enterprise Operations. These Domains provide an industrial base of professional, scientific, and technical resources in support of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to include its Line and Staff Offices. The contracts may also be used by other Bureaus within the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), where applicable. The ceiling dollar amount for all orders under all ProTech Domains is $3,000,000,000.  The Satellite, Oceans, Fisheries, and Weather Domains each have its own solicitation and multiple award IDIQ contracts.  The Enterprise Operations Domain requirements will be met by single and multiple award BPAs and other contracting vehicles. The overall objectives of the ProTech program are to: Obtain high-quality professional and technical services Develop an industrial base of partners Develop and maintain performance-based contracts Contribute to the NOAA mission

SOURCE SELECTION FLEXIBILITIES Broad discretion in developing appropriate order placement procedures Fair opportunity to be considered for orders exceeding $3,500 Minimal submission requirements Streamlined procedures, including oral presentations Competition requirements in FAR Part 6 and the policies in subpart 15.3 do not apply Under ProTech the contracting officer (CO) may exercise broad discretion in developing appropriate order placement procedures. The CO may use streamlined procedures, including oral presentations, and should keep submission requirements to a minimum. If the order does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, the CO need not contact each of the multiple awardees under the contract before selecting an order awardee if the CO has information available to ensure that each awardee is provided a fair opportunity to be considered for each order. The competition requirements in Part 6 and the policies in Subpart 15.3 do not apply to this process. However, the CO must 1) develop placement procedures that will provide each awardee a fair opportunity to be considered for each order and that reflect the requirement and other aspects of the contracting environment; 2) not use any method (such as allocation or designation of any preferred awardee) that would not result in fair consideration being given to all awardees prior to placing each order; 3) tailor the procedures to each acquisition; 4) include the procedures in the solicitation and the contract; and 5) consider price or cost under each order as one of the factors in the selection decision.

ORDERING General Synopsis not required Individual orders shall clearly describe all services to be performed Performance-based acquisition methods Justify restricting consideration (brand name/sole source) 16.505 Ordering. (a) General. (1) In general, the CO does not synopsize orders under indefinite-delivery contracts; except see 16.505(a)(4) and (11), and 16.505(b)(2)(ii)(D). (2) Individual orders shall clearly describe all services to be performed or supplies to be delivered so the full cost or price for the performance of the work can be established when the order is placed. Orders shall be within the scope, issued within the period of performance, and be within the maximum value of the contract. (3) Performance-based acquisition methods must be used to the maximum extent practicable, if the contract or order is for services (see 37.102(a) and subpart 37.6).

ORDERING PROCEDURES IAW FAR 16.505(b)(1), the contracting officer must provide each awardee a fair opportunity to be considered for each order exceeding $3,500 issued under multiple delivery-order contracts or multiple task-order contracts, unless rare conditions listed in FAR 16.505(b)(2) exist. All IDIQ holders will receive notification of each proposed Task Order (TO). The CO must— (A) Develop placement procedures that will provide each awardee a fair opportunity to be considered for each order and that reflect the requirement and other aspects of the contracting environment; (B) Not use any method (such as allocation or designation of any preferred awardee) that would not result in fair consideration being given to all awardees prior to placing each order; (C) Tailor the procedures to each acquisition; (D) Include the procedures in the solicitation and the contract; and (E) Consider price or cost under each order as one of the factors in the selection decision.

RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL Provided to all awardees Contains complete description of requirement and evaluation criteria and instructions Provided via any method allowed in the contract: Regular mail Email Facsimile Allow a reasonable time for response RFP CO shall provide the Request for Proposal (RFP) to every ProTech contract awardee or to small business contract awardees when set-aside procedures are used. The RFP will include: the suggested contract type, estimated TO start date, period of performance, work specification, evaluation criteria (e.g. experience and past performance), the order of importance of the criteria, instructions for submission of a technical and cost/price proposal, special requirements (i.e. security clearances, travel, special knowledge), other information deemed appropriate for the respective order, and deadline for receipt of proposals. The RFP may be provided via regular mail, electronic mail, facsimile, or by other means as determined by the ordering officer. Awardees will be provided an adequate time to prepare and submit responses based on the estimated dollar value and complexity of the proposed TO. Responses will be streamlined and succinct to the extent practical based on the dollar value and complexity of the work. Responses will not be a proposal as defined in FAR 15, but only sufficient information to be considered in accordance with FAR 16.

EVALUATION CO receives proposals Formal evaluation plans or scoring not required Technical evaluation Past Performance may be considered only on previous ProTech TOs Exchanges, if necessary CO determines price fair and reasonable The CO will lead the evaluation of responses against selection criteria contained in the RFP. The award decision will be based upon, as a minimum, price/cost and past performance. The requirement for a source selection evaluation board (SSEB) is determined agency by agency and not established by the FAR.  If necessary, the CO shall lead SSEB in accordance with agency procedures to evaluate all proposals received using the evaluation criteria stated in the RFP. The technical evaluation processes are normally coordinated by the CO with the Client/COR and include: (1) Evaluating skill mix, manning levels, labor hours and/or delivery schedules, (2) Reviewing technical solutions, capacity and/or technical/management approach.  (3) Evaluating past performance on earlier orders under the contract and previous contracts, including quality, timeliness and cost control. Past Performance may be considered, but is not mandatory. Evaluation of past performance will be based on each IDIQ holder’s past performance data on work performed under the ProTech contract, as well as other information available to the Government. Past Performance information for other efforts have already been evaluated during the IDIQ source selection process across all 5 domain areas and must not be repeated at the TO level. The fair opportunity guidance at FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iv) permits the CO to engage in exchanges of information that are similar in scope and intent to discussions described in FAR part 15. The nature of those exchanges provide the CO with great latitude in structuring those exchanges (see FAR 16.505(b)(1)(v)(A)). Furthermore, formal evaluation plans or scoring are not required (see FAR 16.505(b)(1)(v)(B)). The CO is responsible for determining that the total price is fair and reasonable. Contractors may propose rates that are lower, but no higher, than those in the Rate Tables attached to the basic contract, and these lower rates will be incorporated in the TO.  The reduced labor rates will apply only to the respective TO and will not change the rates in the contract rate tables or the rates on other TOs.

AWARD CO makes an award decision Documents decision: At a minimum, documentation will include: A statement indicating whether announcement of the Task Order requirement was made to all contractors eligible for receiving an award for the task requirement, or if an exception to fair opportunity was cited IAW FAR 16.505(b)(2); The selection criteria /methodology used to evaluate the competing contractors; The results of the evaluation; and The rationale for the award decision, including a summary of any negotiations conducted, cost/price analysis and best value analysis. Postaward Notices and Debriefing (Orders Exceeding $5.5M) The ordering activity will then place the order with the contractor that represents the best value and will adhere to published ordering procedures (reference FAR 16.505 and terms of the ProTech contract). After award of orders exceeding $5.5M, the ordering activity will provide timely notification to unsuccessful Offerors IAW 16.505(b)(6).

BEST VALUE Determined by using one of two distinct processes: Tradeoff means, it is in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable (LPTA) means that the award will be made to the offeror whose price is lowest among all proposals that were deemed to be technically acceptable All source selections should ensure that the Government selects the offeror proposing the best value to the Government. BEST VALUE can be determined by using one of two processes: (1) “tradeoff” - In essence this means that the Government will evaluate both technical and price/cost factors as well as past performance and will award to the offeror whose proposal offers the best value to the government, considering trade-offs between price/cost and other factors; or 2) “lowest price, technically acceptable” (LPTA) - The evaluation factors and significant sub-factors that establish the requirements of acceptability shall be set forth in the solicitation. The solicitation shall specify that award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors (See FAR 15.101-2(b)(1)) This method does not allow for trade-offs between price/cost and technical factors. Whether based on the “tradeoff” or “lowest price, technically acceptable” method, successful proposal evaluation depends. appropriate, well-defined evaluation criteria; and evaluation rating standards that are understood and applied consistently among evaluators and among all proposals being evaluated

SAMPLE EVALUATION FACTORS TECHNICAL APPROACH MANAGEMENT PAST PERFORMANCE This slide lists the most common evaluation factors used during source selections. The relative importance of these factors must be stated in the solicitation. For Technical and Management you can either prioritize and evaluate them separately, or combine them into a single factor (Technical/Management). Not all factors are required for the evaluation process; however, Cost/Price must always be considered. SECURITY COST/PRICE

SAMPLE 1 – TECHNICAL EVALUATIONS FACTORS & INSTRUCTION(S) TO OFFEROR Description Instruction to Offeror Example Evaluation Standard Technical Solution/ Approach Provide a description of Offeror’s technical solution/approach to meet the requirements of the SOO or/ PWS dated xxx 201_. The standard is met when the proposal provides a sound technical solution/approach, including the implementation of sound technical processes/procedures which meet requirements of the SOO or/ PWS dated xxx 201_ and ensures operability and maintainability, and the ability to recognize and address program interoperability, safety and security issues, including but not limited to personnel, data, data analysis tools, and assets.

SAMPLE 2 – TECHNICAL EVALUATIONS FACTORS & INSTRUCTION(S) TO OFFEROR Description Instruction to Offeror Example Evaluation Standard Mix/ Availability of Skills Provide a description of the mix of skills proposed in the numbers needed in the time required that meets the requirement of the SOO or/ PWS dated xxx 201_. If personnel are subcontracted, the approach illustrates the method of administration and technical control of the subcontractor(s). The standard is met when the Offeror provides a sound, compliant approach, which meets the requirement of the SOO/ PWS dated xxx 201_ and illustrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements, adequate and appropriate personnel skills, any associated risks, and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the risks, if any. If personnel are subcontracted, the approach illustrates a sound method of administration and technical control of the subcontractor(s).

SAMPLE 3 – MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FACTORS & INSTRUCTION(S) TO OFFEROR Description Instruction to Offeror Example Evaluation Standard Management Approach Provide a description of Offeror’s management approach to meet the requirements of the SOO or/ PWS dated xxx 201_. The proposal should provide all task related materials and services (not otherwise being provided as GFE) required to efficiently and effectively manage accomplishments of tasks covered by requirements. You may want to add - The contractor should provide a program plan tailored to accomplishing administrative, management, technical, and financial requirements, as a minimum a milestone chart, projected spending rate and estimated man-hours should be included. The standard is met when the proposal provides a sound, compliant approach, which meets requirements of the SOO or PWS dated xxx 201_ and illustrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements, their associated risks, if any, and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks This includes all materials and services required to efficiently and effectively manage accomplishments of tasks covered by requirements.

SAMPLE 4 – MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FACTORS & INSTRUCTION(S) TO OFFEROR Description Instruction to Offeror Example Evaluation Standard Capacity Provide a description of the Offeror’s capacity to meet the required delivery schedule (or proposed delivery, if earlier). If subcontracted, the approach illustrates the capacity of the subcontractor and the method of administration and technical control of the subcontractor(s). The standard is met when the Offeror demonstrates the ability to produce the necessary resources to meet or exceed the required delivery schedule (or proposed delivery, if earlier), including but not limited to training, support personnel, diagnostics, and OEM support agreements. If subcontracted, the approach illustrates the capacity of the subcontractor and the method of administration and technical control of the subcontractor(s).

SAMPLE 5 – PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR DEFINICATIONS – SIMPLE REQUIREMENT PASS: A review of the Offeror’s past performance demonstrates that the Offeror has performed successfully, without any unresolved quality issues. Performance has been timely and fully acceptable to the Government. In the event of performance problems, all issues have been resolved to the satisfaction of the Government. (Provide examples from information obtained from the POCs identified by the Offeror, CPARS, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPRIS), etc.) FAIL: A review of the Offeror’s past performance demonstrates that the Offeror has not performed successfully. (Provide examples from information obtained from the POCs identified by the Offeror, CPARS, PPIRS, etc., on the evaluation form.) The extent of the past performance evaluation is determined by the complexity of the requirement. When necessary, the evaluation of past performance will assess the confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. More recent and more relevant past performance usually has a greater impact in the confidence assessment than less recent and less relevant performance. For simple requirements, past performance evaluations may be performed by the CO with input by the client activity’s technical office.

SAMPLE 6 – PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR DEFINICATIONS – COMPLEX REQUIREMENT EXCEPTIONAL: A review of Offeror’s past performance demonstrates that the Offeror has performed successfully, on schedule, and without any unresolved quality issues. Performance has been timely and fully acceptable to the Government. In the event of performance problems, all issues have been resolved to the satisfaction of the Government. (Provide examples from information obtained through past performance evaluation, CPARS, PPIRS, etc.) SATISFACTORY: A review of Offeror’s past performance demonstrates that the Offeror has performed successfully and without any unresolved quality issues. In the event of performance issues, all issues have been resolved to the satisfaction of the Government. (The evaluation team will obtain information from the POCs identified by the Offeror, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting CPARS, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPRIS), etc.) UNSATISFACTORY: A review of the Offeror’s past performance demonstrates that the Offeror has not performed successfully. (The evaluation team will obtain information from the POCs identified by the Offeror, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System CPARS, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPRIS), etc.)

SAMPLE 7 – SECURITY FACTOR (IF REQUIRED) Pass/Fail STANDARD: The Offeror has demonstrated that all security requirements are met. Independent evaluation factors Ability to provide cleared personnel Key personnel identified Hazardous area of operations The Security Factor is often evaluated as Pass or Fail, but it is not required. If the offeror does not receive a Pass in the Security portion of its proposal, the proposal will not be evaluated further. If Security is not pass/fail and will be an independent evaluation factor, then provide the security criteria to be used, including the ranking factors should be provided by the client. Examples include: Did the vendor clearly demonstrate the ability to provide cleared personnel. What time frame is proposed? Are key personnel identified in the proposal that are eligible for SCI access in the time required? How thorough is their strategy for (or have they demonstrated experience in) placing people in a hazardous area of operations?

SAMPLE 8 – RATING SCALE FOR EVALUATING BEST VALUE Color Adjective Definition Blue Exceptional Exceeds specified minimum performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the Government Green Acceptable Meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance Yellow Marginal Does not clearly meet some specified minimum performance or capability requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance but any proposal inadequacies are correctable Red Unacceptable

SAMPLE 9 – RATING SCALE FOR LPTA Adjective Definition Acceptable PASS: Meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance Unacceptable FAIL: Fails to meet specified minimum performance or capability requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance

AWARD CO makes an award decision Documents decision: At a minimum, documentation will include: A statement indicating whether announcement of the TO requirement was made to all contractors eligible for receiving an award for the task requirement, or if an exception to fair opportunity was cited IAW FAR 16.505(b)(2); The selection criteria /methodology used to evaluate the competing contractors; The results of the evaluation; and The rationale for the award decision, including a summary of any negotiations conducted, cost/price analysis and best value analysis. Postaward Notices and Debriefing (Orders Exceeding $5.5M) The CO will award TOs to the ProTech contractor whose proposal is the most advantageous to the Government based on an integrated assessment of evaluation criteria and will adhere to published ordering procedures (reference FAR 16.505 and terms of the ProTech contract).. A copy of the award and any subsequent modifications shall be forwarded to ProTech.Services@noaa.gov. After the TO is awarded, the CO shall issue notification, via email, to those offerors who did not receive the award to inform them of their non-selection. If requested by the unsuccessful awardee(s), the CO will discuss with them the reasons for their non-selection. The CO may only discuss the reasons for non-selection. The CO may not discuss other contract holders’ proposals, compare contract holders’ proposals, or allow a non-selected contract holder access to the award decision documentation. In accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(6), for order exceeding $5.5 million, the CO shall follow procedures at FAR 15.503(b)(1) when providing post award notification and at FAR 15.506 when providing post award debriefing to unsuccessful awardees.

PROTEST TO award generally not subject to protest under FAR Subpart 33.1 Exceptions: when an order increases the scope, period, or maximum value an order valued in excess of $10M Contractor complaints are reviewed by the ProTech Ombudsman In accordance with FAR 16.505(a)(7), no protest under FAR Subpart 33.1 is authorized in connection with CO decisions regarding fair opportunity or the issuance of a TO under this contract, except for a protest on the grounds that a TO increases the scope, period, or maximum value of the contract.

PROTECH OMBUDSMAN Concerns should be first raised to the Contracting Officer NOAA Acquisition and Grants Office (AGO) Ombudsman will hear and facilitate the resolution of concerns Maintain strict confidentiality as to the source of the concern Before consulting with an ombudsman, interested parties must first address their concerns, issues, disagreements, and/or recommendations to the CO for resolution. If resolution cannot be made by the CO, interested parties may contact the NOAA Ombudsman. In accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(8), complaints related to matters affecting TO award may be directed to the designated NOAA AGO Ombudsman. The NOAA Acquisition and Grants Office (AGO) Ombudsman has the responsibility to review contractor complaints and ensure that all contractors are afforded a fair opportunity to be considered for each TO, consistent with the ordering procedures in the contract. The NOAA Ombudsman will review contractor complaints, and if any corrective action is needed, provide a written determination of such action to the TO CO. Issues that cannot be resolved within NOAA shall be forwarded to the DOC Ombudsman for review and resolution. Also see NOAA AGO Acquisition Alert 16-05 (http://www.ago.noaa.gov/acquisition/docs/aa_16- 05_noaa_ago_ombudsman_contracts_08.31.16.pdf)

For additional questions contact protech.services@noaa.gov For POC information visit http://www.protechservices.noaa.gov/contacts.php