ck height=1 colspan=2>
Source Selection in a Streamlined Acquisition Environment P M : M AY - J U N E 19 9 8
32
B E S T B U S I N E S S P R A C T I C E S
Source Selection in a
Streamlined Acquisition Environment
The Means for Sound Source Selection
Has Always Been In Our Grasp Creativity
L T . C O L . S T E V E W . G A R D N E R , U . S . A I R F O R C E
S
ince the advent of Acquisition
Streamlining, many good ideas
have found their way into print,
most of which purport to be the
one best way to do streamlined
acquisition. Unfortunately, many of these
approaches miss the mark since stream-
lining is not a single method of doing
business, but is instead a loose set of
guidelines to be interpreted and applied
with common sense and integrity.
Nowhere is this more apparent than
when applying a streamlined approach
to source selection. Previous source se-
lection backbones (statement of work,
government specifications and stan-
dards, etc.) take on entirely new mean-
ings or even completely disappear during
a streamlined source selection. When
properly used, a streamlined source se-
lection can provide signicant benets
in acquiring technologically superior sys-
tems in the least possible time.
This article discusses some of the lessons
learned from a recent streamlined source
selection and furnishes some hints to
program managers conducting source
selections.
What Makes Sense?
With the emphasis on streamlining, a
program manager faces a wide latitude
of possibilities for source selection. It
Gardner is a Senior Program Manager, Advanced
Programs. Management Team, Advanced
Programs Directorate, Aeronautical Systems Cen-
ter, Eglin AFB, Fla. He is a graduate of APMC 97-3,
DSMC. Assisting him in preparing this article for
publication were the Advanced Programs
Management Team members.
Source selection teams
must be encouraged
to color outside the lines
using common sense and integrity.
If it isnt illegal, give it a try! P M : M AY - J U N E 19 9 8
33
really comes down to What makes
sense? Over the years the abundance of
rules and regulations governing the
source selection process trained program
managers to be somewhat unimagina-
tive or even hidebound in their approach
to source selection.
Because of the tremendous volume of
work, the template method of source
selection is still the easiest path to take
what has worked in the past will cer-
tainly work in the future. However, in
the new acquisition environment this
template idea will no longer yield the
best solution.
With the cutting of the acquisition work-
force, the implementation of integrated
product teams, and renewed emphasis
on customer satisfaction, source selec-
tions must be leaner, faster, and offer the
best opportunity to get the maxi-
mum from the contractor for
the best value. This requires a
fundamental shift in paradigm,
a turn away from business as usual,
and an expansion of the role of the
program manager in the source selec-
tion process.
These actions require no new laws or
regulations; the Source Selection Infor-
mation Guide
1
governs source selection
and provides more than enough latitude
to streamline source selections using al-
most any formula desired. What is re-
quired has always been in our grasp
creativity. Our job then, is just a case of
taking advantage of it.
While it is impossible to cover all the
lessons learned here, we present a few
ideas to help program managers get
a feel for the new way of doing busi-
ness and, in turn, get the most from the
source selection process. As with a
source selection, this presentation of
ideas begins with the writing of the Re-
quest for Proposal.
Writing the Request
for Proposal
The tone a team sets in a source selection
will determine the quality of the product
received. When team members approach
a source selection professionally and con-
dently, everyone involved contractor
and government tends to perform at
a higher level. The Request for Proposal
(RFP) and the environment it is written
around set the tone for the entire source
selection process. Also part of the RFP
environment are the demands the RFP
makes on the contractors, how the pro-
gram ofce handles and safeguards pro-
posals, and the technical library and the
pre-proposal conferences.
The SOW and Section L
A good place to start this discussion is
with the writing of the statement of work
(SOW). This can be summed up in one
word: Dont! The traditional SOW ex-
plains how a product will be designed
to the lowest detail. This places the de-
fense contractor in the position of being
solely a gun for hire. It makes more
sense to let contractors decide how they
will do the job. Perhaps someone in their
organizations has an idea never before
seen. The best way to get that idea is to
dispose of the SOW and replace it with
a statement of objectives (SOO).
Although so much has been written
about the SOO any further explanation
is beginning to sound trite, true under-
standing requires a fundamental change
in method. For example, instead of writ-
ing the objectives for an airlifter that can
y 8,000 miles un-refueled, carry out-
sized and oversized cargo, and land on
a soft eld (specications of soft to be
provided in detail), step back once and
write the objective to deliver outsize and
oversize cargo to Konya Aireld, Turkey
(a soft eld) within 25 hours. Finally,
give the offerors the budget breakdown
by year and color.
That information, with two or three key
requirements, will constitute the entire
SOO! Dont be tempted to hide a SOW
in section L or M (as has been done in
some notable streamlined programs).
However, provide instructions in Section
L that clearly dene what must be included
in the SOW (e.g., performance, manage-
ment, reliability, maintainability, pro-
ducibility, logistics, safety, HAZMAT, etc.)
so the contractor will know how to write
it. This method is sure to generate spec-
tacular and previously unimagined ideas.
One unexpected prot from writing the
SOO this way is the shortened length of
the RFP, since this one tactic may cut its
size signicantly. The RFP has to be tai-
lored to the type of source selection and
will differ considerably between program
phases, but using a true one-page SOO
will considerably decrease the workload.
In turn, this shortens the time it takes
to write the RFP and the time it takes
the contractor to respond.
Part of that contractor response will be
to write the SOW. Another hint is to have
the contractor provide this SOW elec-
tronically for the cleanup that will need
to be done. Other than that, dont pro-
vide any direction. Responses will more
than likely include a high-quality SOW
that covers the task.
Not providing direction means also not
demanding the use of any specications
or standards. If contractors think any
specications or standards are necessary,
they can include them in their propos-
als. If a proposal doesnt provide a
specication/standard (commercial or
government) to accomplish a critical task
and the evaluation team believes it
should, that proposal can either be clar-
ied or discarded.
Section M
Color rating and risk assessment used
for the evaluation must be specically
spelled out even if both contractor and
government teams insist they understand
these longstanding denitions. When ac-
tually faced with either writing or evalu-
ating a proposal, most people carry
preconceived baggage into the process
of what constitutes a color or risk as-
sessment, and ignore the denitions con-
tained in regulations. This tendency is
so strong that even when teams nally
do understand the formal denitions,
they sometimes still refuse to pro-
pose/evaluate correctly, thinking there is
latitude to diverge from these denitions.
The correct meanings of the color rat-
ings, the proposal risk, and the perfor-
mance risk should be included in
Section M of the RFP. While this will
make it clear to the contractors, the de-
nitions should also be briefed to the P M : M AY - J U N E 19 9 8
34
evaluation team, with emphasis placed
on the fact that the evaluators must use
the Section M denitions and not their
own. These steps should mitigate the
problem, but constant vigilance is
needed by both the team chairman and
evaluators to actually solve it.
Responses to an RFP could provide a
wide variety of options to the govern-
ment, particularly with the streamlined
process of using a SOO and asking for
only a few key requirements, with the
majority remaining in trade space. Sec-
tion M evaluation criteria, the areas to
be evaluated, and the weighting of these
areas must be consistent with this new
way of doing business.
The one hat ts all mentality will not
provide the government with the type
of acquisition process it desires. For in-
stance, past performance should be
weighted according to the goals of the
program. If the program is striving to
push technological barriers and the eval-
uation team evaluates past performance,
technical, and management categories,
it would make sense that the past per-
formance category probably should not
constitute 33 percent of the rating.
Instead, the technical category will prob-
ably account for the most weight. In an-
other situation where technology is not
the driving factor, past performance
probably shouldnt be ju