NCMA CPCM Value Pack (Frequently Bought Together)

When reviewing technical factors in a solicitation package, the evaluation team should __________.

• A. verify proposed funding sources
• B. use a deficiency log
• C. consider price proposals
• D. review non-cost/price factors on their own merits

To reach a consensus, the evaluation team should evaluate proposals __________.

• A. individually and then average their ratings
• B. as a team and then discuss each proposal's strengths and weaknesses
• C. individually and then discuss their individual ratings as a team
• D. as a team and select the highest-rated proposal

Scenario 5.0: 1
Offeror C contested the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under a request for proposals (RFP) issued by the buyer for "aircraft logistics, integration, configuration management, and engineering" (ALICE) services. The seller would provide personnel to work at a buyer's location, and the buyer would direct all work and "establish work hours consistent with meeting the mission at each contract location." The RFP provided an estimated level of effort, and offerors completed a pricing model spreadsheet.
Proposals were to be evaluated on mission suitability, past performance, and cost/price. The mission suitability and past performance factors were approximately equal in importance, and each was more important than cost/price. The purpose of the mission suitability factor was to determine the offeror's ability to provide the required personnel at the required work hours to fulfill the contract need. It included several subfactors: management approach, overall management approach, staffing approach, and contract phase-in approach.
Offeror C argued that the buyer unfairly assessed a management approach weakness for failing to show a plan for complying with required work schedules and break times, failing to consider that the buyer establishes work hours consistent with mission needs, and failing to consider the buyer's intention to have night shift work on Sundays. Offeror C's proposal had discussed its approach to managing scheduling and breaks and stated that it would comply with collective bargaining agreement requirements. The buyer nevertheless judged the approach inadequate because it did not explain how Offeror C would enforce worker compliance, comparing the plan to a highway speed-limit sign that does not ensure motorists will not speed. GAO found that the RFP required offerors to explain their approaches to ensuring flexible scheduling and required breaks, but did not reasonably disclose that offerors also had to propose an enforcement mechanism.
Question:
The RFP required offerors to explain their approaches to ensuring that scheduling was flexible and provided required breaks. Was the buyer's assignment of a weakness to Offeror C's proposal reasonable?

• A. No, because the buyer evaluated Offeror C's enforcement mechanism, which was not a stated criterion.
• B. Yes, because Offeror C did not address how they would comply with required work schedules and breaks.
• C. No, because Offeror C specified that they would require all of their workers to be available to work on Sunday nights.
• D. Yes, because the Offeror C did not indicate how it would enforce its work schedules and breaks.

The __________ states that only what is written in the contract is applicable and that all previous verbal or written statements are not.

• A. "Parol Evidence Rule"
• B. "Doctrine of Contra Proferentem"
• C. "Usage of Trade Rule"
• D. "Plain Meaning Rule"

Scenario 5.0: 2
The buyer issued a request for proposals (RFP) for various support services. As part of these services, the seller would need to review the work of other contractors on existing and future programs. The RFP noted the potential for impaired objectivity or unfair competitive advantage organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs), and specified that the seller would be ineligible for involvement at any level on specifically identified contracts. The RFP also specified a second set of contracts-one of which was identified as "LKS"-that presented potential OCIs, and directed any seller performing work under these latter contracts to provide notice and an OCI mitigation plan that would be analyzed by the buyer.
The buyer intended to award a single cost-plus-fixed-fee, level-of-effort contract for a two-year base period with three option years to the offeror whose proposal provided the best value. This determination was to be based on an evaluation of proposals under the following three factors, in descending order of importance:
o Cost
o Mission suitability
o Past performance
For this contract, mission suitability and past performance, when combined, were to be approximately equal in importance to cost.
The RFP provided that the evaluation of cost proposals would assess both reasonableness and realism. To determine cost, the RFP provided estimates for both estimated level-of-effort hours and optional flex hours for nine labor categories, specifying the experience, skills, and description for each category. Under the mission suitability factor, the RFP included various management approach subfactors. These included a phase-in approach subfactor, which required offerors to specify an incumbent capture rate as a percentage of the total workforce and to justify the rate and methods used to achieve it. Both offerors in the competitive range indicated high incumbent capture rates. The proposed staffing approach was to be assessed under the technical approach subfactor.
The source selection plan provided a table that described how point scores would be assigned and which corresponding adjectival ratings would result from the scores. During the first evaluation, the buyer assigned a weakness to one of the two offerors in the competitive range, Offeror A, based on the fact that Offeror A offered at or below the average compensation for the low end of the required experience level, as well as the risk associated with Offeror A's ability to capture a qualified workforce. In response, Offeror A showed the buyer that it had used commercial compensation rates to determine its compensation rates. As such, the compensation rates Offeror A had submitted in its proposal were less than the company's engineers were currently being compensated.
After establishing the competitive range, the buyer held discussions with Offeror A and Offeror B. The buyer then requested final proposal revisions (FPRs).
In its FPR, Offeror A noted that its major subcontractor, Sub A, was the prime contractor on the "LKS project" mentioned in the RFP, and submitted an OCI mitigation plan that included a labor distribution and mapping template showing that the program supported by Sub A's LKS project would not be overseen by Sub A's staff performing work on the new contract. Contemporaneous records indicated a brief discussion by the evaluators of this approach, but did not discuss OCI mitigation directly and provided no indication that the potential OCI was analyzed.
After reevaluation, Offeror A had slightly higher scores in the technical approach and mission suitability subfactors, a lower past performance rating, and a lower probable cost. After receiving and evaluating the FPRs, the buyer awarded the contract to Offeror A.
Question:
Which of the following would have been the most appropriate goal for the buyer's discussions with the offerors within the competitive range?

• A. To clarify the identified risks in the offers.
• B. To determine ways to improve Offeror A's incumbent capture rate.
• C. To negotiate the best possible price for Offeror B's offer.
• D. To convince Offeror A to select a different subcontractor.