USE OF THE PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

The term “proposal preparation instructions” encompasses all information provided to a contractor regarding the format and contents of its proposal. Although this term is not in universal use in federal contracting, it is used here to describe the consolidation of all proposal preparation information in one clearly identifiable place in the RFP. If communication is to be effective, all information of a similar nature should be grouped and presented in the same place.

Proposal preparation instructions are used to ensure that prospective contractors submit proposals that facilitate full evaluation of each offeror’s expertise and ability to perform the required work. Generally, these instructions are for guidance only, but you may want to make compliance mandatory for some instructions, such as paper size, type size, font style, and particularly page limitations. If you do, this must be spelled out in the proposal preparation instructions. While an offeror has the right to respond to a solicitation in any manner it sees fit, an offeror would be foolish to ignore the proposal preparation instructions; at the very least, doing so would reflect poorly on the offeror’s ability to follow instructions.

Proposal preparation instructions are used to: (1) ensure appropriate coverage in the proposals, (2) standardize proposal format, and (3) require the submission of specific information.

To Ensure Appropriate Coverage

The primary purpose of proposal preparation instructions is to ensure that each proposal addresses your areas of interest as expressed by the evaluation factors in Section M. The contractor should be required to structure its proposal in the same order of importance as the evaluation factors listed in Section M. For example, if the following evaluation factors are listed in Section M in descending order of importance, require that the proposals address the same factors in the same order. This ensures that the proposals will discuss your areas of interest in the same order and with the same level of importance as you will use in evaluation. For example:

Technical Factors
Technical Approach/Understanding the Requirement
Technical Plan/Methodology
Management Factors
Management Approach
Staffing Plan
Key Personnel
Corporate Experience
Past Performance
Cost

Presenting Primary Evaluation Factors

Section M presents each primary evaluation factor with a title and a short narrative illustrating the salient characteristics of the factor. Your proposal preparation instructions should present each primary evaluation factor in the same manner. This is redundant, but repeating the narrative description from Section M reinforces the connection between Section M and the proposal preparation instructions. You may choose simply to paraphrase the narrative description in Section M, but if you do this, exercise care in your wording. A paraphrased description can confuse the offeror, particularly if paraphrasing causes the requirement to appear different than in Section M.

Presenting Significant Sub-factors

Sub-factors are used to amplify the primary evaluation factors; therefore, the sub-factors should be presented somewhat differently. The subfactor narrative begins with a general statement (the same as used in Section M) followed by a statement of the specific information requirements that support the subfactor. The specific information requirements will vary depending on the circumstances, but they should amplify the general statement, explaining what information you expect to see in the proposals.

Information requirements should specify both form and content. These requirements may address the submission of charts or graphs, a discussion of methods and methodology or specific technical considerations, technical or management plans and schedules, staffing levels and labor mix, and any other information you consider necessary to evaluate an offeror’s response to a particular evaluation sub-factor. If certain tasks in the SOW require specific supporting information, you should reference those tasks to ensure that the connection is made.

For example, in a requirement for a study, the technical factors and significant subfactors could be presented as follows:

Technical[primary factor]

Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of the soundness and workability of the proposed technical approach, the demonstrated understanding of the requirement, and the validity of the technical plan and proposed methodology [the same as set forth in Section M].

Technical Approach/Understanding the Requirement[significant subfactor]

The offeror shall demonstrate a sound and workable technical approach that ensures a high probability of successful performance. The offeror shall demonstrate its understanding of the requirement through the degree of thoroughness, soundness, and comprehension expressed by the proposed technical approach [thesame as set forth in Section M].

The offeror shall describe its technical approach in sufficient detail to demonstrate its soundness and workability. Identify the scope of the study and how its purpose will be accomplished. Provide an analysis of the complexity of the requirement and indicate how any anticipated problems will be identified and resolved [specific information requirement].

Technical Plan/Methodology[significant subfactor]

The offeror’s technical plan, schedule, and the methodology to be employed to identify, obtain, research, and analyze articles, reports, and other information sources will be evaluated for its appropriateness for this study and the extent of effort proposed [the same as set forth in Section M].

The offeror shall fully describe its plan for its technical approach, demonstrating that it complies with the tasks set forth in the statement of work, including the phasing of tasks, scheduling of work effort, staffing, and the methodology to be employed. The discussion of methodology shall include the methodology to be used for data collection and that to be used to analyze the data and draw conclusions. Identify other methodologies that might have been applicable and indicate why they were not selected. Identify the proposed sources of information to be used and discuss the methods to be used to identify and obtain the information required. Indicate the volume of the anticipated research material and the research techniques to be used. Propose questions or areas of interest for the study when these are not provided in the SOW [specific information requirement].

The specific information requirements for technical sub-factors vary considerably depending on what is being acquired. Information requirements that would facilitate the evaluation of the offeror’s technical expertise and understanding of the requirement might include the following:

Discuss specific work elements of particular interest (indicate if this information will be incorporated into the contract)

Provide specific technical information such as graphs, drawings, charts, and other technical information needed for evaluation

Discuss technical performance problems that the government has identified in the SOW or are otherwise known to the offeror and how they might be resolved

Provide details of the proposed effort that demonstrate how the offeror will meet the requirement

Discuss the proposed methodology or technical approach to be used, including an explanation of why the particular methodology or technical approach was selected, where more than one is available

Provide a risk assessment that identifies risk areas and recommend approaches to minimize the impact of the risks on the overall success of the contract

Provide a performance assessment, as appropriate, on past or current contracts that identifies contract performance problems and indicates how they were, or will be, corrected

Define milestones or specific work schedules, including a work plan and performance schedule

Propose details of scheduled technical meetings (e.g., purpose, when, where, who attends), when such meetings are dictated by the government in the SOW

Discuss the technical data requirements and format

Discuss the proposed quality assurance procedures

Propose a test plan, including information on how the tests will be conducted and test results analyzed, if specific testing requirements are not dictated by the government in the SOW.

Providing a general statement followed by the specific information requirements ensures that the offeror understands how each sub-factor will be evaluated and that you get the information needed for evaluation. You must be as explicit as possible. Instructions that help offerors write their proposals are a plus, not a minus. You want offerors to write proposals that are responsive to your concerns. This makes the evaluation easier. At the same time, you should keep in mind that your job is to evaluate the offeror’s technical expertise and ability to perform the contract, not its proposal-writing ability.

The following are examples of how other evaluation sub-factors could be presented and some of the types of information that might be needed for evaluation. Tailor the specific requirements to the procurement. Do not list something as a requirement unless you are sure that you know how you would evaluate the information submitted.

• Management Approach

The general statement should require the offeror to provide a detailed discussion of its approach to overall management and integration of all activities required by the SOW. This discussion should also address the management objectives and techniques that demonstrate how the work requirements will be met.

Specific information requirements might include the submission of organization charts, discussion of the lines of authority and responsibility, a demonstration of how the proposed organization will be prepared to respond promptly to problems or program changes, how the proposed project manager will obtain support from other corporate elements and subcontractors, and his or her ability to access higher levels of corporate management. Other useful information might be how the offeror prepares its internal management reports and how long after actual performance this information will be available (this helps in developing a meaningful schedule for submitting reports to the government).

• Staffing Plan

The general statement should require the offeror to describe the proposed staffing plan, including how long it will take to staff the contract fully, and how peak workloads, overlapping or simultaneous task assignments, and sick and vacation leaves will be covered.

The specific information requirements might include a discussion of how the offeror’s resources are allocated, how the offeror plans to retain the proposed staffing levels, information on turnover rates and related recruiting efforts, and, when appropriate, how the offeror plans to maintain the required level of personnel with security clearances.

• Key Personnel

The general statement should require the offeror to describe the educational background, directly related work experience, professional development, and demonstrated performance record of the proposed key personnel.

Key personnel requirements and other resource requirements, such as minimum or maximum staffing levels, are not generally appropriate for performance work statements used in performance-based contracting (see Chapter 3). Such requirements tend to inhibit the contractor’s ingenuity in developing its approach to meeting the contract requirements. (This does not, however, prevent the government from evaluating the key personnel or other resource requirements proposed by the offeror.)

Specific information requirements usually include a description of what is required in the résumés of key personnel, such as information demonstrating that the individual meets the minimum qualification criteria described in the SOW. You should also obtain information on the current employment status of the proposed key personnel. If the individual is not currently employed full-time by the offeror, require a letter of intent or some other indication of the individual’s commitment to work under the contract, as well as an authorization to use the individual’s résumé in the proposal. You may also want the offeror to indicate the amount of time (usually as a percentage) that each key individual will devote exclusively to work under the contract. It is important to identify any other contracts to which the individual is committed, because you could have a problem if the individual is already fully or substantially committed to other work.

If past performance is also an evaluation factor, require the offeror to indicate any involvement of proposed key personnel with any of the contracts referenced for past performance. You may want to question the offeror about the involvement of proposed key personnel in a contract that receives an adverse past performance report. Such questions, however, should be reserved for discussions (after establishment of the competitive range) because, while the offeror’s response might require a proposal revision to name a different individual, it would not, in and of itself, require a proposal rejection.

• Corporate Experience

The general statement should require the offeror to describe the corporate experience that demonstrates the contractor’s ability to efficiently perform the tasks required under the contract.

The specific information requirements usually include a requirement for the offeror to demonstrate previous experience similar to the current requirement. Require the offeror to identify the contract number, type of work done, contract type and dollar value, and name and telephone number of the contracting officer’s technical representative (COTR) for each referenced contract. Require the offeror to demonstrate how each previous contract relates to the proposed effort. To ensure that the corporate experience is relevant, limit the time period for referenced contracts. The typical time periods used are three to five years, depending on how technological changes or other events may have affected the relevance of past contracts.

• Past Performance

The general statement should require the offeror to identify current or past contracts that identify the offeror’s ability to perform the required effort successfully.

The specific information requirements usually include a requirement for the offeror to demonstrate previous experience similar to the current requirement. Require the offeror to identify current and past contracts for the same or similar work, including the contract number, dollar value, dates, name of the contracting agency, a contact telephone number, and a brief description of the work effort that demonstrates how the referenced contract relates to the proposed effort.

Require the offeror to identify any performance problems with the referenced contracts and the corrective action taken to resolve the problems. Inform the offeror that if past problems are not addressed fully, the government will assume that they still exist.

To ensure that the past performance information is relevant, limit the references to current contracts and contracts that have been completed within the past three to five years, depending on how technological changes or other events have affected the relevance of past contracts.

Although past performance information is similar to the information required for the corporate experience evaluation factor, it will be evaluated differently.

Corporate experience is used to assess a contractor’s technical expertise and is typically evaluated on the basis of the contractor’s experience with the same or similar work. It is related to whether the contractor has done such work in the past—not how well the contractor performed. Past performance is used to assess the quality of the contractor’s performance and is typically evaluated on the basis of how well the contractor performed the same or similar work in the past and how that past performance is likely to affect the current effort.

• Cost or Price

Under cost or price, you should describe how you want the contractor to present its cost or pricing proposal. These directions will vary depending on the contract type and the estimated dollar value. For example, if the requirement is expected to exceed $550,000 and a cost-reimbursement contract is contemplated, the following might be appropriate.

The general statement should indicate that cost data must be fully supported, documented, and traceable. The data must identify the basis of the estimate for each cost element, discuss how it was developed and calculated, and indicate which are based on actual and verifiable data and which are based on projections. For projected cost elements, the offeror must discuss the judgment factors used to project from the actual and verifiable data to the estimated value. Any contingencies or allowances used in developing the proposed costs and prices must be identified and discussed.

The specific information requirements vary. The FAR states that if the submission of cost or pricing data is required, the contracting officer may require submission in the format indicated in Table 15-2 of 15.408, specify an alternative format, or permit submission in the contractor’s format. If information other than cost or pricing data will be required, it may be submitted in the contractor’s own format unless the contracting officer decides that use of a specific format is essential for evaluating and determining that the price is fair and reasonable, and the format has been described in the solicitation. If data supporting forward-pricing rate agreements are required, then the data supporting forward-pricing rate agreements or final indirect cost proposals should be submitted in a format acceptable to the contracting officer.

To Standardize Proposal Format

While the primary purpose of the proposal preparation instructions is to obtain information for evaluation, a secondary purpose is to make the evaluation process easier by standardizing the proposal format. Requiring adherence to the outline of the evaluation factors in Section M helps ensure that all proposals will present the information in the same format. Standardization makes the evaluation process easier because the evaluators will not need to search through differing proposal formats to find the necessary information. Standardization also assists offerors in their proposal preparation by eliminating the need for them to guess the proposal format that would be most acceptable to the government. This leads to better proposals.

Standardizing proposal format involves more than just providing an outline to follow. Standardization also includes establishing the number of proposal volumes, indicating the number of copies to be provided, setting page and type size preferences, and, when appropriate, limiting the number of proposal pages.

Proposal Volumes

Typically, the technical and management proposals are evaluated separately from the pricing proposals, by different evaluation teams. To permit both to be evaluated at the same time, offerors should be directed to divide their proposals into separate volumes. At a minimum, separate pricing and technical volumes should be provided.

Include a statement that pricing information is to be provided only in the pricing volume. This is necessary to protect the objectivity of the technical evaluation. Knowledge of the pricing can bias the results of the technical evaluation. In most instances, the technical evaluators know how much funding is available. It is difficult to evaluate a proposal objectively when you know that the proposal price is significantly higher or lower than the funds available.

As proposals become more complex, the need for additional proposal volumes increases. Often a management volume is required in addition to the technical and pricing volumes. Large, complex requirements may require additional volumes dealing with specific areas, such as specific tasks in a large, multi-tasked requirement. An examination of the evaluation plan can help determine how many volumes are required. If the plan indicates that a number of different evaluation teams will be evaluating different tasks, each team should have its own volume, if feasible.

In some instances you may want to include an executive summary as a separate volume. Be careful with executive summaries. They are not a substitute for close examination of the detailed proposal. Define this requirement carefully—make sure that offerors understand that the purpose of this document is simply to provide an overview of the proposal contents. Instruct offerors not to include pricing information in the executive summary. It is also a good idea to place a stringent page limit on this document.

Number of Copies

The number of copies to be provided is a function of the number of evaluation teams and how you will conduct the evaluation. Generally you should require enough copies so that each evaluator has a copy; however, if you do not plan to have each evaluator review each proposal, you will not need that many. Do not require more copies than will actually be used in evaluation. Proposals must be safeguarded in a manner similar to classified material—you do not want extra copies lying around.

Paper Size, Type Size, and Font Styles

Indicate the paper size, type size, and font style or styles to be used in the proposal. This helps avoid unnecessarily elaborate or hard-to-read proposals. Such standardization is also needed when page limits are used.

Paper size is usually established as the standard 8½ × 11 inches to discourage the use of legal-sized paper (which does not fit well into standard government files and provides an unfair advantage when page limits are dictated). You also may want to limit the size of fold-out pages. Fold-out pages are usually limited to non-text information, such as charts, tables, or diagrams, and the size is commonly 11 × 17 inches. Margins are often set at 1 inch. Some agencies require that proposal printing be double-spaced rather than single-spaced. Other agencies dictate the maximum number of lines that may be printed on a page.

Type size is usually set at no smaller than 10-point character height (vertical size) and no more than an average of 12 characters per inch to avoid the use of small print that is difficult to read.

Font styles are usually established only where provisions are made for proposals to be submitted in both hard copy and electronically or where page limits are set. If offerors will submit proposals electronically, the word processing program used must be compatible with your systems.

Page Limits

Page limits are used to preclude the submission of unnecessarily elaborate or lengthy proposals. A necessary prerequisite to the use of page limits is, of course, that you know how many pages constitute a reasonable proposal for your particular requirement. If you set the page limits too low, you may not get all the information you need. If you set the page limits too high, you are encouraging elaborate proposals. The best guideline to use is the complexity of your requirement. If you have a complex requirement (this will be reflected in the size of your SOW and the number of evaluation teams), you should probably establish a page limit. Examine previously submitted proposals for similar efforts to see if an average can be established, or simply use your best judgment. If the requirement is not complex, page limits are not necessary.

When using page limits, specify exactly what counts as a page. Generally, page limits are applied only against the basic text of the technical and management proposals. Attachments may or may not be included in the page limit. You may want to include page limits for attachments that amplify information in the technical and management proposals; otherwise, you may end up with slim proposals and fat attachments. You may also want to limit the types of information included in the attachments to technical supporting information that would not influence the evaluation of the technical and management proposals. Pricing proposals are usually not included in page limits.

In addition, you must state how you will determine which pages are excess and what will happen to excess pages. Typically, excess pages are determined by counting from the first page of the proposal. When the count reaches the page limit, the counting stops.

Pages in excess of the page limit are physically removed from the proposal (before the evaluation starts) and returned to the offeror. Offerors should be reminded that when excess pages are removed and not evaluated, this usually results in substantial proposal deficiencies, the correction of which is not permitted.

When you find formatting problems, such as the wrong type size, too many lines per page, and wrong page size, you should either recalculate the page count based on what it would be if done as directed, or simply remove the offending pages.

The use of page and format limitations depends on current circumstances. You should, however, have a valid reason for the limitations you do use. Keep in mind that when used, page limits must be followed in the evaluation and cannot be waived, unless the RFP is amended to revise the page limits for all offerors. If your limits are too restrictive or confusing, you may end up having to reject what might otherwise have been one of the most highly rated proposals.

You should note, however, that a proposal is not rejected simply because it exceeds page or format limitations. A proposal is rejected only when, after removing the excess pages, evaluation of the remaining proposal pages results in a determination that the proposal is technically unacceptable. It is the deficiencies that result when only part of a proposal is evaluated that causes the rejection, not the failure to adhere to the page or format limitations. Rejection is required because a technically unacceptable proposal is not subject to correction; to allow correction would give the offeror an unfair competitive advantage if it was permitted to have its noncompliant proposal evaluated as is, while other offerors adhered to the limitations in their proposals.

Figure 1-3 is an example of how a page limit could be established in the proposal preparation instructions.

To Require Specific Information

The proposal preparation instructions may also be used to elicit specific information that you need to amplify your initial SOW when you intend to incorporate all or part of the successful offeror’s proposal into your final SOW. Incorporation by reference is accomplished by inserting a clause in the contract to the effect that all, or specified parts, of the contractor’s proposal are incorporated into the contract by reference, and including the incorporated portions as an attachment to the contract. The incorporated portions become part of the contract, and the contractor is legally required to perform accordingly (contractors are required to do only what is written into the contract).

Generally, incorporation by reference is used in instances where the requirements are difficult to describe. You may not know how to go about meeting the requirement because of its technical complexity (as in software development). You may not be sure the requirement can be met, and part of the purpose of your requirement is to find out (as in R&D). There may be a number of ways to meet the requirement, and you do not want to predetermine the way by specifying it in the SOW. You must, therefore, get the offerors to provide the necessary details in their technical proposals.

FIGURE 1-3:
Establishing a Page Limit

In such instances, you should provide a broad functional description of your requirement in the initial SOW and use the proposal preparation instructions to require offerors to explain the details of how the work will be done. The successful offeror’s proposal would then be incorporated by reference (in whole or in part) into the final SOW.

To do this, you must tell the offerors the level of detail to be provided, such as the technical approach, work plans, methodology, analytic techniques, management reporting, and other details as to how the offeror proposes to meet the requirement. This is not dissimilar to what might be required in any event, but you must also indicate that the successful offeror’s proposal will be incorporated by reference into the resulting contract and provide the offerors information about how to write a proposal to ensure that the wording used is contractually viable (see Chapters 4, 5, and 6).

It should be noted that you do not have to incorporate proposal detail by reference to include such information as a contractual requirement. You could amend the RFP to include the information in your SOW before award. To do this, the RFP must inform all offerors that you intend to revise the SOW to include certain information (specify the information) from the successful offeror’s proposal. Or, you could simply revise the SOW in the award document for the successful offeror. You must be careful, however, to ensure that the revisions do not constitute a change to the nature of your requirement. Unsuccessful offerors can protest last-minute changes that could have affected the competitive standings.

A contractor’s proposal is a promise to perform in a particular manner, but the contractor is not legally bound to perform in that manner as long as the contractor’s performance meets the contractual requirements. If you want to hold the contractor to all or particular parts of its proposal, you must take action to include the pertinent parts of the contractor’s proposal in the SOW. As noted, this can be done by incorporating by reference or by revising the SOW, but it must be done before contract award.