MP5315 - Contracting by Negotiation

2019 Edition

Revised: June 2023

MP5315.3 Source Selection

1 PURPOSE, ROLES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Applicability and Waivers

1.3 Best Value Continuum (No DAF Text)

1.4 Source Selection Team Roles and Responsibilities

2 PRE-SOLICITATION ACTIVITIES

2.1 Conduct Acquisition Planning

2.2 Develop a Source Selection Plan (SSP)

2.3 Develop the Request for Proposals

2.4 Release the Request for Proposals (No DAF Text)

3 EVALUATION AND DECISION PROCESS

3.1 Evaluation Activities

3.2 Documentation of Initial Evaluation Results

3.3 Award without Discussions

3.4 Competitive Range Decision Document

3.5 Discussion Process

3.6 Final Proposal Revisions

3.7 Documentation of Final Evaluation Results

3.8 Conduct and Document the Comparative Analysis

3.9 Best Value Decision

3.10 Source Selection Decision Document

3.11 Debriefings (No DAF Text)
3.12 Integrating Proposal into the Contract

4 DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS

4.1 Minimum Requirements

4.2 Electronic Source Selection

4.3 Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTP), Samples, and Tailorable Templates

5 DEFINITIONS ( No DAF Text)

6 MANDATORY AIR FORCE SOURCE SELECTION TRAINING

6.1 Purpose

6.2 Responsibilities of Senior Contracting Officials (SCO)

6.3 Required Training for Designated Trainers

6.4 Acquisition/Source Selection Team Training

6.5 Source Selection Training Material

6.6 Training Certificates.

6.7 Source Selection Training Survey.

6.8 Continuous Learning Points (CLP).

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES (No DAF text)

MP5315.4 Contract Pricing

MP5315.400-1 Proposal Instructions.

MP5315.400-2. Requesting data/documentation after receipt of the proposal.

MP5315.404-1-90 Pricing Assistance or Pricing Assistance Waiver

MP5315.407-90 Contract Audit Follow-up (CAFU)

MP5315.6 — UNSOLICITED PROPOSALS

MP5315.606-90 Receipt, Evaluation, and Disposition of Unsolicited Proposals

MP5315.3 Source Selection

1 PURPOSE, ROLES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES
1.1 Purpose

This Mandatory Procedure (MP) establishes supplemental procedures for conducting competitively

negotiated source selections of $10M or more within the Department of the Air Force (DAF), and

follows the numbering convention of the DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated 20 August 2022.

1.2 Applicability and Waivers

This MP must be used in conjunction with FAR Part 15, as supplemented, to include the DFARS Part

215 and its companion resource entitled Procedures, Guidance and Information (PGI), DoD Source

Selection Procedures, and related laws, regulation, and policy. As guidance, this MP also provides

hyperlinks to non-mandatory best practices, TTPs, sample RFP and contract language, tailorable

templates and training materials.

1.2.1.1 Acquisitions with an estimated dollar value less than or equal to $50M may use price as the

only evaluated factor and therefore be exempt from the DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated 20

August 2022, and from this MP if all of the following conditions are met:

1) The requirement is non-complex and well-defined, such that consideration of non-cost/price

evaluation factors (e.g., technical, past performance, etc.) would not provide any meaningful

differentiation amongst proposals and would add no value to the selection of a successful offeror;

2) Past performance record and history will be assessed as one of the multiple standards required

for a successful offeror to be determined responsible as described in FAR 9.104;

3) Use of price as the only evaluation factor is the most advantageous approach to the government;

and

4) The acquisition strategy approving official has determined that use of price as the only evaluated

factor is the most appropriate source selection methodology for the requirement and the justification

for this determination is included in the approved acquisition strategy/plan.

1.2.1.2 A waiver allowing the use of price as the only evaluated factor for an acquisition with an

estimated dollar value greater than $50M may be granted on an acquisition specific basis by the

SCO upon the waiver authority’s determination that the conditions at 1.2.1.1 (1)-(4) are met.

1.2.3Waivers.Waivers for solicitations valued at $1B or more for approval by the Director, Defense

Pricing and Contracting (DPC), must be forwarded through the SCO to the cognizant HCA Workflow

for review and processing. See MP 5301.601(a)(i) for the waiver approval authority when the

solicitation value is above $10M but less than $1B. For waivers pertaining to SSAC establishment,

SCOs should consider input from the SSA. 1.2.4.1. Waiver procedures apply only to the DoD Source

Selection Procedures (CAUTION: read paragraph 1.2 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures) and

this MP. The requirements of FAR 15.3, as supplemented, cannot be waived as these requirements

are subject to the FAR deviation process (see DAFFARS 5301.402(2), DAFFARS 5301.403(1)(i), (ii),

and DAFFARS 5301.404(b)(i) and (ii).

1.3 Best Value Continuum (No DAF Text)
1.4 Source Selection Team Roles and Responsibilities

1.4.1 Source Selection Authority (SSA).

1.4.1.1 SSA Appointment.

SSA

Designations

$10M to

less than

$100M

(Note 1)

$100M and above

(Note 2)

Program

Acquisition

Category

(ACAT) I, IA

Cognizant

SAE Cognizant SAE

ACAT II and

III

Program

Executive

Officer (PEO)

PEO

Operational &

Enterprise

(including

services

EXEMPT from

AFI 63-138)

(Note 3) (Note 3)

Operational &

Enterprise

Services

Acquisitions

subject to AFI

63-138

SSA is the

Services

Designated

Official (SDO) as

designated in

AFI 63-138,

Table 2.1, the

Services

Management

Agreement

(SMA), if

applicable, and

the SDO

delegation

letter.
NOTES :

1. Delegable to

no lower than

the Procuring

Contracting

Officer

(PCO)/equivalent

or higher

position within

the PEO/

requiring

organization

chain.

2.

Appointments

in this

column

represent the

written

appointment

of the SSA by

the Agency

Head.

Delegable to

no lower than

one level

above the

PCO or

equivalent or

higher

position

within the

PEO/

requiring

organization

chain.

3. The SSA is the Center

Commander/Wing Commander/PEO or

MAJCOM/FLDCOM/DRU/FOA/DAFRCO

director-level individual who is

responsible for the requirement unless

delegated in accordance with Note 1

for acquisitions $10M to less than

$100M or Note 2 for acquisitions

$100M and above.

A tailorable Delegation of Source

Selection Authority (SSA) template is

available for use, as desired.

1.4.1.2 SSA Responsibilities. In addition to the responsibilities listed in FAR 15.303(b), DFARS

215.303(b)(2), and the DoD Source Selection Procedures, the SSAshall:

1.4.1.2.3 Be accessible to the PCO, SSEB Chairperson and SSAC Chairperson (if applicable) to

ensure that necessary leadership and guidance is provided to the SST. Promote active

communication within the SST and encourage the team to raise concerns/issues.

1.4.1.2.6 See the following tailorable templates:

1.4.1.2.6.1 Source Selection Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) . An NDA may be executed on an

annual basis in accordance with DAFFARS 5303.104-4(a).

1.4.1.2.6.2 Conflict of Interest Statement .

1.4.2 PCO.

1.4.2.2 PCO Responsibilities. In addition to the responsibilities listed in FAR 15.303(c) and the DoD

Source Selection Procedures, the PCO shall:

1.4.2.2.2 Consider sample RFP Section L language for Use of Non-Government Advisors, when

applicable.

1.4.2.2.3 Manage all source selection documents, control and record all exchanges with offerors, and

protect all documents (see Section 4). Consider identifying a Source Selection Records Custodian

(SSRC) familiar with the contracting process to manage all source selection documents (PCO or

someone under PCO oversight). Ensure source selection material is not removed, circulated, or

disseminated outside of the source selection work area without PCO review and approval. Ensure all

means of electronic communications receive additional scrutiny to preclude inadvertent release of

documents that contain sensitive or embedded source selection files. It is a good practice that prior
to transmission of Source Selection Information to offerors via any means, the information is

reviewed by a second person to preclude inadvertent inclusion of inappropriate data. Additionally,

Source Selection Information transmitted to offerors electronically (e.g., via email or disc) or posted

to a website must be distributed in a “locked” format, such as scanned .pdf file, .jpeg file, or other

protected format, unless offerors are required to fill-in or complete portions of a document, such as

Section K Representations and Certifications, or a pricing matrix. Using e-mail to transmit source

selection information should be done judiciously and it must be encrypted and digitally signed.

Include in the subject line the phrase “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104”.

Use the Source Selection Information Cover Sheet to identify source selection information. For RFPs

released after 30 November 2020, use the SF 901 Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Cover

Sheet (AF Template). A sample Verification of Correspondence Going to Offeror checklist may be

utilized, as desired.

1.4.2.2.4 Maintain in the official contract file (whether in hard copy or electronic media) all

evaluation material and any related supporting information, including minority and dissenting

opinions, that has been presented in any form to the SSA as an official record that must not be

altered. Updates, revisions, or changes to that evaluation information must be captured in

subsequent documentation such that the original record remains distinct.

1.4.2.2.4.1 Working papers, calculations, and personal notes must be clearly identified as such and

are not normally part of the official source selection record unless they include information relevant

to the source selection decision and the information has not been captured in the official record.

Solicit the advice of legal counsel and representatives from the Acquisition Center of Excellence

(ACE) (if used) regarding the management and/or retention determination of any paper or digital

document generated during the source selection. Legal counsel, the SSEB Chair, SSRC (if other than

the PCO) and the PCO must review any notes, working papers, and other documents for a retention

determination at regular intervals during the source selection process and upon completion.

1.4.2.2.4.2 Preserve documents and data that are not stored within the electronic official contract

filing system (e.g., classified documents, product samples, electronic media) as part of the official

record and identify their physical location. A sample Source Selection File Checklist may be tailored

for use, as desired.

1.4.2.2.4.3 Ensure that any requests for source selection delegations are properly accomplished and

documented in the source selection file.

1.4.2.2.7 Send a notice to all appropriate organizations (e.g., user or requirements personnel, public

affairs offices, etc., that could be contacted by offerors or media outlets concerning the requirement

or acquisition) concurrent with issuance of the solicitation announcing that a source selection is in

progress. For acquisitions estimated at $100M or more, send the notice to the cognizant HCA

Workflow for HAF-level notification. The notice shall:

1) identify the system, subsystem, service, or project involved;

2) identify the anticipated period of the source selection activities;

3) include a statement to the effect that contacts or briefings concerning the program by industry

are no longer allowed outside of the formal source selection process; and

4) state that the PCO (include name and phone number) controls all contact or exchanges with

industry/offerors and is the only person authorized to release source selection information before

and after contract award.
A tailorable template for Notice Announcing that a Source Selection is in Progress is available for

use, if desired.

1.4.2.2.11 Post source selection lessons learned no later than 90 days after contract award or

termination/cancellation of the source selection.

1.4.3 SSAC.

1.4.3.2 SSAC Composition.

1.4.3.2.1 It is preferable that the SSAC Chairperson not be in the chain of command of the SSA.

1.4.3.2.2 For all new Milestone B (Pre-MDAP on Major Defense Acquisition Program lists) ACAT I

and II competitive acquisitions, the specific composition of the SSAC should consist of senior leaders

(flag rank or 0-6/GS-15/NH-04 to the maximum extent practicable) from Program Management,

Engineering, Finance, Legal, Contracting, Small Business, the ACE, and any other participants as

determined appropriate by the SSA, who have recent experience in the successful conduct of source

selections. The SSAC may be augmented with senior leaders from the SAF/AQ or SAF/SQ staff, when

appropriate, to provide additional experience and expertise. The SSAC may also be supplemented by

other subject matter experts at comparable functional positions. For non-weapon system acquisitions

when an SSAC is used, the specific composition of the SSAC is at the discretion of the SSA, based

upon the expertise required to accomplish a successful source selection.

1.4.4 SSEB.

1.4.4.4 SSEB Responsibilities.

1.4.4.4.1.7 It is considered a best practice for the Program Manager (PM), when one is assigned, to

serve as the SSEB Chairperson. It is also a best practice that the SSEB chair not serve in multiple

roles.

1.4.4.4.3 For source selections without an SSAC, the SSEB Chairperson must document in the

source selection plan, whether or not the SSA wants the SSEB to perform the comparative analysis

of proposals and provide that analysis and an award recommendation in the SSEB Final Report.

1.4.6 Other Advisors.

1.4.6.1 Government Advisors. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers and international cooperative

project partners may only participate in the source selection process as advisors. The PCO must not

disclose to the FMS customer any form of cost or price data that is proprietary unless the offeror

authorizes its release.

1.4.6.2.2 Limitations on use of nongovernment advisors. Nongovernment advisors shall not attend

the past performance portion of evaluation briefings.

2 PRE-SOLICITATION ACTIVITIES
2.1 Conduct Acquisition Planning

2.2 Develop a Source Selection Plan (SSP)

The PCO and the SSEB chair, with assistance from SSEB members, as necessary, prepare the SSP. A

Source Selection Plantemplate is available for use, if desired.

2.2.5 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors. When using VATEP, address the decision to use, or not use,

an affordability cap, along with supporting rationale for the decision. If an affordability cap will be

used, describe how it will be evaluated and whether offerors whose proposals exceed the

affordability cap will be eligible for award.

2.2.6 Documentation. Briefing charts shall not serve as the SSEB Initial Report, Competitive Range

Decision Document, updated SSEB Initial Report, or SSEB Final Report, but may be used to present

summaries of these reports to the SSA. If briefing charts are used to comply with any other source

selection documentation requirements set forth in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, a written

script for each briefing must be maintained in the official (permanent) contract file. Briefings should

summarize the evaluation and not duplicate the content of written reports.

2.2.9 Securing Source Selection Materials. Section 9.0 of the SSP (“Securing Source Selection

Materials”) must include a plan and procedures which address the filing, protection, handling,

maintenance, release, retention and disposition of all documents that constitute the complete source

selection record. For those source selections utilizing an electronic system for source selection

documentation, the SSP must include the process for handling documentation, such as the process

for documenting the basis for any changes made to an evaluator’s finalized document. The plan must

address training for all SST members to familiarize them with the plan/procedures and

mechanism(s) to ensure compliance with the plan/procedures.

2.2.10 The PCO shall maintain the SSP after approval. Subsequent proposed changes to the source

selection organization, to include the SSEB and the SSAC (when used), shall be documented in an

addendum to the SSP and approved by the SSA unless the SSA delegates this approval responsibility

to the SSEB Chairperson within the SSP.

2.3 Develop the Request for Proposals

2.3.1 Evaluation Factors/Subfactors. RFPSection L and M samples are available for use, as desired.

2.3.4.1 Cost or Price. The analysis technique(s) identified in FAR 15.404,as supplemented, for the

evaluation of the proposed cost or price shall be included in the evaluation criteria (Section M or

equivalent provisions of the solicitation for commercial acquisitions).

2.3.4.1.1 When used, the Probable Cost estimate is the government estimate of the cost to acquire

specified goods and/or services based on each offeror’s proposed approach. The Probable Cost is

based upon an analysis of each offeror’s unique proposal in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d). Define

all the components that make up the aggregate government Probable Cost and specify them in

Section M (or equivalent provisions of the solicitation for commercial acquisitions).

2.3.4.2.4 Affordability Cap. When an affordability cap is established, the affordability cap must be

specified in the RFP and affordability must be included either as a go/no go gate or as an evaluation
criterion in the RFP. The RFP must state whether proposals that exceed the affordability cap can be

considered for award.

2.3.6. Requirements that fall within the areas of traditional offeror responsibility factors may trigger

the Small Business Administration Certificate of Competency (CoC) process if such requirements are

evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, as a rating of unacceptable for an otherwise

apparently successful business offeror equates to a non-responsibility determination. For example,

issues related to facility clearance/security requirements or evaluation of professional employee

compensation as an element of responsibility are areas that may trigger the CoC process for small

business offerors. PCOs should consult with small business and legal counsel regarding the use and

treatment of such evaluation factors/subfactors.

2.4 Release the Request for Proposals (No DAF Text)

3 EVALUATION AND DECISION PROCESS

3.1 Evaluation Activities

3.1.1.5 When FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (Feb 1993), is

included in the RFP, the Government shall evaluate whether all offerors considered for award

understand the contract requirements and have proposed a compensation plan appropriate for those

requirements. This evaluation may be accomplished through a technical subfactor to evaluate

offerors’ proposed management approach and or/staffing plan, or including the evaluation under the

cost/price factor or as a “Volume I” proposal submission and element of proposal compliance and

offeror responsibility.

3.1.1.5.1 When including the professional employee compensation evaluation as a “Volume I”

proposal submission and element of proposal compliance and offeror responsibility in a source

selection with small business offerors, a finding of non-responsibility due to an inadequate

professional employee compensation plan for an otherwise successful small business offeror requires

the PCO to engage the Small Business Administration Certificate of Competency (CoC) process.

3.2 Documentation of Initial Evaluation Results

3.2.1 SSEB Initial Evaluation. The SSEB Initial Report is used to document the results of the SSEB’s

initial evaluation. The rationale for initial evaluation results and assignment of initial ratings will be

fully and contemporaneously documented in the SSEB Initial Report. The SSEB Initial Report shall

be signed by the PCO and SSEB Chairperson after the completion of initial evaluations and prior to

presentation of the initial evaluation results to the SSA. The following tailorable templates are

available for use, as desired:

SSEB Report Initial Evaluation Briefing

3.3 Award without Discussions

3.3.3 Documentation Required Prior to Contract Award. The PCO must obtain contract clearance
approval in accordance with DAFFARS 5301.9000(e)(1) prior to the SSA making the decision to

award without discussions.

3.4 Competitive Range Decision Document

3.4.1 The tailorable Competitive Range Decision Document (CRDD) template is available for use, as

desired.

3.5 Discussion Process

3.5.5 Best Practices. The PCO may provide offerors in the competitive range with their own initial

ratings and results of their own initial pricing analysis or total evaluated price. When interim ratings

and pricing analysis are provided prior to requesting final proposal revisions, the ratings must

reflect the results of discussions with the offeror. PCOs may use the actual briefing charts used to

brief the SSA as a method of disclosing an offeror’s ratings and price analysis to them. The PCO

must require offerors to provide proposal change pages along with their EN responses for any

aspect of the proposal that will be incorporated into the awarded contract.

3.5.7 The SSEB Initial Report shall be updated, as necessary, following evaluation of offeror

responses to discussions. The rationale for updated (interim) evaluation results and assignment of

updated (interim) ratings will be fully and contemporaneously documented in the SSEB Initial

Report. The updated SSEB Initial Report is reviewed by the SSAC (if an SSAC is used) and must

include, if applicable, any minority and dissenting opinion(s). At a minimum, the report shall be

updated and signed by the PCO and SSEB Chairperson prior to presentation of the pre-Final

Proposal Revisions evaluations and briefing to the SSA.

The following tailorable templates are available for use, as desired:

SSEB Report Pre-Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) Request Briefing

3.6 Final Proposal Revisions

3.6.3 The PCO must obtain contract clearance approval in accordance with DAFFARS

5301.9000(e)(2)(i) prior to submission of all material (e.g., Pre-FPR briefing) to the SSA to obtain

approval for releasing the FPR request.

3.7 Documentation of Final Evaluation Results

3.7.1 The rationale for final evaluation results and assignment of final ratings will be fully and

contemporaneously documented in the SSEB Final Report. The SSEB Final Report is prepared by

the SSEB and reviewed by the SSAC (if an SSAC is used) and signed by the PCO and SSEB

Chairperson after the evaluation of FPRs. The tailorable SSEB Report template is available for use,

as desired.

3.7.2 The SSEB Final Report must document, if applicable, any minority and dissenting opinion(s).
3.7.3 A decision briefing, prepared by the SSEB, will generally be conducted whenever the SSA is

other than the PCO. The tailorable Final Decision Briefing template is available for use, as desired.

3.8 Conduct and Document the Comparative Analysis

3.8.1 The SSAC’s comparative analysis of proposals and award recommendation is documented in

the Comparative Analysis Report and Award Recommendation (CAR). The tailorable Comparative

Analysis Report and Award Recommendation template is available for use, as desired.

3.9 Best Value Decision

3.9.1 The PCOmust obtain contract clearance approval prior to the SSA making a source selection

decision in accordance with DAFFARS 5301.9000(e)(2)(ii).

3.10 Source Selection Decision Document

3.10.1 The tailorable Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) template is available for use, as

desired.

3.11 Debriefings (No DAF Text)

3.12 Integrating Proposal into the Contract

The RFP must advise offerors that the awarded contract document will reflect all beneficial aspects

of the awardee’s proposal and all above threshold (minimum) attributes, performance levels, or

capabilities for which evaluation credit was given in the source selection process (e.g., purple or

blue technical or technical/risk rating, above threshold elements proposed for valued requirements),

regardless of source selection process utilized.

4 DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS

4.1 Minimum Requirements

4.1.15 All briefing charts presented to the SSA (including, but not limited to, competitive range

briefing charts, pre-FPR request briefing charts, and decision briefing charts) must be included in

the official (permanent) contract file.

4.1.16 Evaluation worksheets and summaries shall be included in the official (permanent) contract

file.
4.2 Electronic Source Selection

EZ Source is the standard Air Force documentation tool that shall be used for all unclassified

competitive acquisitions valued at $100M or more (unless waived by the CAA), or when an

acquisition has been designated a high visibility program by a PEO or Center/Complex/Wing

Commander. EZ Source may be used for acquisitions valued at less than $100M. In order to ensure

proper support is available to the team, PCOs must use the SharePoint EZ Scheduler to request the

use of EZ Source and input information relative to their acquisition not later than 60 days prior to

the projected RFP release.

4.3 Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTP), Samples, and Tailorable Templates

Source Selection TTPs can be accessed at the DAF Contracting TTP Team page.

Templates: A comprehensive collection of source selection samples and tailorable templates,

including those listed below, are located on the Contracting Templates and DAFFARS Library, Part

5315 pages within the Air Force Contracting Central (AFCC) SharePoint site (please note: this link

requires CAC and is not available to all users.)

Source Selection Documentation Templates

Abstract of Proposals/Quotations (Negotiated Procurement)

Delegation of Source Selection Authority (SSA)

Past Performance Questionnaire (Sample 1)

Past Performance Questionnaire (Sample 2)

Past Performance Questionnaire (Sample 3)

Section L Attachment - Past Performance Information

Solicitation Cross Reference Matrix

Source Selection File Checklist

Source Selection Plan

Subcontractor Consent Letter

Verification of Correspondence Going to OfferorChecklist

Source Selection Information Coversheet

SF 901, Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Cover Sheet (AF Template)

Source Selection Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)

Conflict of Interest Statement

Sample RFP Section L language – Use of Non-Government Advisors
RFP Section L & M Samples

Notice Announcing that a Source Selection is in Progress

Competitive Range Decision Document

Comparative Analysis Report & Award Recommendation

Source Selection Decision Document

Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Templates

Rating Team Worksheet (Methodology 1)

Rating Team Worksheet (Methodology 2)

Rating Team Worksheet (PPT)

Tradeoff Technical Evaluator Template

LPTA Technical Evaluator Template

Tradeoff Subfactor Chief Template

LPTA Subfactor Chief Template

Evaluation Notice (EN)

SSEB Report

Initial Evaluation Briefing

Pre-Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) Request Briefing

Final Decision Briefing

Past Performance Evaluation Team Documents

Relevancy Template

Tradeoff Performance Quality Template

LPTA Performance Quality Template

Business Relationship Template

Past Performance Information Template

Tradeoff Past Performance Confidence Assessment Template

LPTA Past Performance Evaluation Template

Performance Confidence Rating Evaluation

Cost/Price Evaluation Team Document
Cost/Price Template

5 DEFINITIONS ( No DAF Text)

6 MANDATORY AIR FORCE SOURCE SELECTION TRAINING

6.1 Purpose

This Section establishes and standardizes the mandatory Air Force source selection training process

for acquisition/SSTs.

6.2 Responsibilities of Senior Contracting Officials (SCO)

SCOs must: (a) implement a robust source selection training program; (b) designate a Training

Manager/Point of Contact (POC); (c) designate experienced source selection trainers; and (d)

maintain current lists of the Training Managers/POCs for use at their respective locations. The lists

should be updated as necessary, but at a minimum shall be updated annually. A Designation of

Source Selection Training Manager/Trainers template is available for use, as desired.

6.3 Required Training for Designated Trainers

6.3.1 Designated trainers must receive “Train-the-Trainer” training and be certified as source

selection trainers. Periodic “Train-the-Trainer” sessions are conducted by SAF/AQCP personnel

every other month via webinar; however, this training may be conducted by any SCO-designated and

experienced source selection trainer. Note that this is summary-level training designated trainers

and not for use by source selection teams and other individuals to satisfy the source selection

training requirements set forth in paragraph 6.4.1.

6.3.2 Training Managers/POCs must maintain a record of the source selection training provided by

designated trainers, including the name of the acquisition, training date, names of individuals

trained, and training provided (e.g., Phase I (Acquisition Planning) or Phase II (Source Selection

Execution) training).

6.3.3 Designated trainers who have not conducted source selection training within a two (2) year

period must be recertified. Recertification requires that the SCO confirm the individual’s continued

designation as a source selection trainer and that the individual re-complete the “Train-the-Trainer”

training.

6.4 Acquisition/Source Selection Team Training

6.4.1 Conducting Source Selection Training Sessions.

Source selection training must be presented to the entire SST, including the SSA, SSAC Chair and

members, PM (where one is assigned), RO,and all advisors. Independent review of source selection

training materials by SST members and/or attendance at “Train-the-Trainer” training is not
sufficient to satisfy this training requirement.

Specialized executive level training modules are available for the SSA and SSAC.

Phase I (Acquisition Planning)training should be presented at the earliest stage of an acquisition

and covers the acquisition process up to release of the RFP.

Phase II (Source Selection Execution)training is presented prior to or immediately after receipt of

proposals.

6.4.2 Training Content and Process.

The SAF/AQCP Knowledge Management Team develops and maintains source selection training

modules to assist Source Selection Trainers. Trainers are encouraged to tailor the modules, as

needed, to meet the unique elements of the instant acquisition.

The Ethics, Procurement Integrity, and Conflicts of Interest topic should be presented by the

local legal advisor. Links to Ethics training material are included in both Phase I and Phase II source

selection training materials. The use of locally-developed Ethics training by local legal advisors is

encouraged. The length of the source selection training and the level of detail presented in either

Phase I (Acquisition Planning) or Phase II (Source Selection Execution) depends on the complexity of

the specific acquisition and the experience level of the SST.

6.4.3 Advance Preparation.

Effectiveness of the source selection training experience can be enhanced with advance preparation.

The Defense Acquisition University (DAU) offers continuous learning modules on source selection

and related topics. Some suggested DAU courses include the following:

CLC 004 - Market Research

CLC 028 - Past Performance Information

CLC 132 - Organizational Conflicts of Interest

CLM 049 - Procurement Fraud Indicators

6.5 Source Selection Training Material

The Source Selection Training Modules, Trainer’s Lesson Plans, and Resource/Reference Material

are accessible by designated trainers and training managers on SharePoint at

https://usaf.dps.mil/sites/AFCC/KnowledgeCenter/source_selection_training/Forms/AllItems.aspx.

Additional training materials for teams are available in the DAFFARS Library, Part 5315.

6.6 Training Certificates.

Any Trainer conducting “Train the Trainer” training will provide a Source Selection Training

Certificate to the Training Managers/POCs and Trainers upon completion of the source selection

training. Trainers must provide the Source Selection Training Certificate for Phase I and Phase II to

the personnel they train.
6.7 Source Selection Training Survey.

Following training, personnel are encouraged to complete the Source Selection Training Survey .

The feedback provided through the survey will enable the SAF/AQCP Knowledge Management Team

to gauge the effectiveness of its source selection training material and obtain suggestions for

improvement.

6.8 Continuous Learning Points (CLP).

Designated Source Selection trainers may grant CLPs to source selection attendees. As a general

rule, CLPs must be given based on the length and intensity of the training provided. Trainers may

grant six (6) CLPs for each full day of instruction, three (3) CLPs for half-day, and one (1) CLP for a

two-hour session.

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES (No DAF text)

MP5315.4 Contract Pricing

MP5315.400-1 Proposal Instructions.

To facilitate timely awards of sole source contract actions and definitization of Undefinitized

Contract Actions (UCA) within 180-days after receipt of qualifying proposal, contracting officers:

a. provide contractors with clear and concise proposal instructions, including a suspense date for

proposal submission;

b. require that contractor proposals (both prime and subcontractors) are submitted as adequate for

evaluation and valid for the anticipated time required to conduct evaluation, audit, negotiation and

award, with data updates provided until the conclusion of negotiations in accordance with Truthful

Cost or Pricing Data Act[PS1] .

c. Include DFARS provision 252.215-7009 in sole-source draft and final Requests for Proposals

(DRFPs/RFPs) and RFPs for UCAs when the contract value is anticipated to exceed the threshold for

obtaining certified cost or pricing data, and no exception to the requirement to submit certified cost

or pricing data applies. (See FAR 15.403-1(b).)

d. Include a provision substantially the same as L-XXX, Cost Proposal Adequacy and Structure, in the

solicitation, or as a paragraph within a letter RFP, whenever DFARS provision 252.215-7009 is

included. Add paragraph (e) to provision L-XXX, Cost Proposal Adequacy and Structure, only when

an electronic version of the cost proposal with active formulas (e.g., in Excel) is required.

Contracting officers may tailor this provision as necessary to reflect the unique circumstances of

each acquisition.

L-XXX COST PROPOSAL ADEQUACY AND STRUCTURE

NOTE : The blue italicized text below represents instructions for the contracting officer and should
be removed prior to incorporating Section L into the solicitation.

(a) In response to this Request for Proposals (RFP), the offeror shall prepare and submit certified

cost or pricing data and supporting attachments in accordance with Table 15-2 of FAR 15.408.

Further, the offeror shall (1) utilize the DFARS provision 252.215-7009, Proposal Adequacy Checklist

(PAC), in pre-submission proposal quality reviews, and (2) furnish the completed checklist as part of

their proposal submission.

(1) The responsibility for providing a well-prepared and fully supported cost proposal lies solely with

the offeror. The basis and rationale for all proposed costs shall be provided as part of the proposal so

that the contracting officer has the information necessary to evaluate the reasonableness of the

proposed price.

(2) If the offeror is unsure as to whether a checklist item is required in support of the proposal, or

how to adequately comply with a checklist item, the offeror shall contact the contracting officer as

soon as possible after receipt of the RFP, but in any case prior to proposal submittal, to resolve the

questions.

(3) Non-compliances with the DFARS Proposal Adequacy Checklist and the additional requirements

of this provision will require immediate correction. However, completion of the checklist does not

relieve the offeror from the responsibility to comply with all applicable regulations and any special

requirements of the solicitation.

(4) The offeror is encouraged to flow down this provision to subcontractors/affiliates required to

submit certified cost or pricing data in support of this RFP.

(b) The offeror is advised that the contracting officer may find costs associated with revision/rework

of inadequate cost proposals unreasonable, and will consider the nature and extent of any proposal

inadequacies when assessing/negotiating profit.

(c) In order to preclude delays in negotiations and contract award, the completed PAC submitted

with the proposal shall provide a clear explanation for any checklist items not included in the

proposal, particularly items not provided based on any of the exceptions to certified cost or pricing

data found at FAR 15.403-1(b) and DFARS 212.102(a)(i)(B).

(d) Cost Proposal Requirements. In addition to the requirements identified in the DFARS PAC, the

following also apply to the cost proposal submitted in response to this RFP.

(1) Breakout by Year. If the proposal includes more than one CLIN, the proposal shall include a

breakout of CLIN prices by cost element by Contractor Fiscal Year (CFY). At the contracting officer’s

direction, the breakout by year shall also be provided by: (select applicable breakouts)

Government Fiscal Year (GFY)

Calendar Year (CY)

The proposal shall define the timeframe of the Contractor Fiscal Year (for example, January –

December).

(2) If the proposal includes more than one CLIN/subCLIN, recurring/non-recurring costs shall be

identified for each CLIN/subCLIN.

(3) When the proposal includes material costs, the proposal shall include a consolidated bill of
materials (CBOM) at the total contract level in an electronic, sortable format (Excel spreadsheet or

other format approved by the contracting officer).

i. When the amounts proposed in the CBOM include application of escalation, the proposal shall

identify the base value, the escalation rate(s) used, and the escalation amount associated with each

item escalated.

ii. When the proposed amount is based on historical data which has been adjusted (for example, for

differences in quantity), the CBOM shall clearly identify the adjustments made to the historical data

and the reason for each adjustment.

(4) All costs proposed on the basis of Cost Estimating Relationships (CER) shall be fully supported.

The proposal shall identify the basis for the proposed rate, shall identify the base to which the rate is

applied, and shall clearly demonstrate the calculation of proposed costs based on CERs.

(5) For any costs incurred prior to proposal submission, the proposal shall identify actual hours and

cost incurred as well as hours/costs to complete and the time phasing associated with these

hours/costs. This information/data shall be provided in a time-phased cost element summary format.

(6) Submission of Historical Actual Costs Incurred. (Insert in RFPs for follow-on efforts as applicable.

The contracting officer may identify specific contracts for which submission of actual cost data is

required (for example, the last three lot buys of the same item), or may require that the contractor

identify its most recent sales of the items to any customers, if the contractor’s sales base is broader

than the current buying office. Language may be tailored to request insight into specific areas of

cost (e.g., sustaining engineering hours). However, the contracting officer should take into

consideration the extent to which the contractor’s existing business systems can support requests

for granularity in reporting of actual costs incurred, as well as the potential time and cost involved in

obtaining very detailed or low-level historical actuals.)

(i) The contractor shall provide the following information for these prior acquisitions: [contracting

officer identifies the specific acquisitions for which actual cost data is required. Alternately, the

contracting officer may require the contractor to identify prior and current contracts for the same

items covered in this RFP.] For these contracts, the contractor shall provide the following

information:

a. contract number (including modification number if applicable) or other identifier;

b. contract type;

c. contract quantity;

d. contract price; and

e. actual cost incurred, including a breakout of actuals as recurring/non-recurring costs. If

performance is not complete on any of the specified contract actions, provide an estimate to

complete and the basis for that estimate.

(ii) The contractor shall also request that its top five major sole source subcontractors provide the

information listed in the above paragraphs (i) a. through e. on prior contracts for items the prime is

purchasing from the subcontractors for this effort. If a subcontractor’s information on prior actuals

is not included in the prime’s proposal, the proposal should identify status and anticipated receipt

date(s). If the subcontractor deems the information proprietary, the subcontractor may submit the

information directly to the contracting officer.
(7) The proposal shall identify those actions where assist audits have been requested by the prime or

sub-tier contractors and identify the request date and scheduled receipt date for those audits. The

need for assist audits resulting from proprietary data rights assertions at any tier shall be identified

to the contracting officer as soon as the offeror becomes aware of the need. Government

performance of assist audits does not relieve the offeror of the responsibility to accomplish and

provide its price/cost analysis of the subcontracts.

(8) If the offeror intends to request Performance-Based Payments (PBP), the offeror’s proposal shall

include a monthly expenditure profile, proposed events and their projected completion dates,

rationale on why the proposed event demonstrates significant progress towards the completion of

the end item, proposed values for each event, completion criteria for each event, and an

identification of each event as severable or cumulative.

(9) Commercial product and commercial service considerations:

i. The offeror’s proposal shall provide support for any subcontractor commercial product or

commercial service determinations, addressing, at a minimum, the following:

a. A description of the supplies or services;

b. Specific identification of the type of commercial product or commercial service claim (FAR 2.101

commercial product sub-definitions (1) through (6) or commercial service sub-definitions (1) through

(3)), and the basis on which the product or service meets the definition; and

c. For modified commercial products (commercial product sub-definition (3)), classification of the

modification(s) with supporting rationale as either:

1. Of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace (FAR 2.101 commercial product

sub-definition (3)(i)); or

2. A minor modification of a type not customarily available in the commercial marketplace made to

meet Federal Government requirements (FAR 2.101 commercial product sub-definition (3)(ii)).

Note that per FAR 15.403-1(c)(3)(iii)(B), modifications that meet the definition of minor

modifications of a type not customarily available in the commercial marketplace as defined in FAR

2.101, paragraph (3)(ii) of the commercial product definition, will require the submission of certified

cost and pricing data when the total price of all such modifications exceeds the greater of the

threshold for certified cost or pricing data (FAR 15.403-4) or 5% of the total price of the contract at

the time of contract award.

ii. For proposed subcontract commercial products or commercial services “of a type”, or “evolved”

or modified (FAR 2.101 commercial product sub-definitions (1) through (3) or commercial service

sub-definition (2)), the offeror shall provide a technical description of the differences between the

proposed product or service and the comparison product or service and thoroughly address the cost

differences between the proposed product or service and the comparison product or service.

iii. The proposal shall include, or the offeror shall make available, data other than certified cost or

pricing data to establish price reasonableness of the proposed subcontract commercial product or

commercial service (to include any modifications not subject to the requirement to submit certified

cost or pricing data) by supplying:

a. Information/data related to competition, if competition is the offeror’s basis for asserting the

reasonableness of the proposed subcontract price.
b. Information/data related to prices (sales data, market price assessments, etc.). Note that

subcontractors may submit sales data directly to the contracting officer if the subcontractor deems

the data proprietary.

c. The prime contractor’s or higher tier subcontractor’s price analysis/price reasonableness

determination for the commercial subcontract in accordance with FAR 15.404-3(b)(1) and (2).

d. Cost information/data (cost element breakdown and supporting documentation not subject to

certification in accordance with FAR 15.406-2). Instances where cost information may be required

include but are not limited to commercial products offered but never actually sold to the public, “of a

type” commercial products or commercial services, or when sales data is limited and/or not recent

and/or not for the same/similar quantities.

Note that the preferred method of establishing the price reasonableness of commercial products and

commercial services is to obtain commercial sales data. It is recognized that other methods, such as

market price assessment data or evaluation of cost data not subject to certification, are also

acceptable when prior sales data cannot be obtained. Sales data shall (1) demonstrate sales to the

general public; (2) be current; and (3) where possible, be in like quantities. Products sold to state,

local, or foreign governments or products sold with applications only to state, local, or foreign

government or US Government end items are not considered to be sales to the general public unless

the proposed commercial product meets the FAR 2.101 commercial product definition sub-definition

(6).

(10) Additional Cost/Price Proposal Requirements: (Identify any additional requirements applicable

to the solicitation, or enter “N/A”.

- If an electronic CBOM providing traceability to the CLIN level, to WBS paragraph, etc. is required,

identify that requirement in this paragraph.

- If sales data supporting price reasonableness of a commercial product or commercial service is

required, use this paragraph to provide specifics as to the level of detail and applicable date range(s)

of the sales data.

- If a breakout of basic and options is required, detail that requirement here)

Add the following paragraph to provision L-XXX, Cost Proposal Adequacy and Structure, only when

an electronic version of the cost proposal with active formulas (e.g., in Excel) is required. This

paragraph may be tailored as necessary to describe the specific requirements of the electronic cost

model.

(e) Submission of electronic cost model. (Tailor as needed for each specific circumstance. If

electronic cost models are required for any subcontractors or affiliates, identify those requirements

within this paragraph.)The proposal submission shall include an electronic cost model with active

formulas demonstrating the mathematical calculation of the proposed cost (in Excel or other format

approved by the contracting officer). The electronic cost model shall include build-up by year of cost

in total and by CLIN/subCLIN, consistent with the yearly breakout required by paragraph (d)(1) of

this provision, or as directed by the contracting officer. If applicable, the electronic cost model shall

link each Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) to the applicable CLINs. The electronic cost model shall

roll up to an annual and total program summary by cost element. All information supporting each

CLIN should be visible and verifiable in the electronic cost model. The formulas included in the

electronic cost model shall not be locked, and the model shall be editable by the Government.

NOTE : The blue italicized text above represents instructions for the contracting officer and should
be removed prior to incorporating Section L into the solicitation.

MP5315.400-2. Requesting data/documentation after receipt of the proposal.

a. A contracting officer request for supporting data/documentation from a contractor (whether

verbally or in writing) after proposal receipt, must clearly state what data/documentation is needed

and when it should be provided.

b. If requested data/documentation is not readily available because of extenuating circumstances

(e.g., data that did not form the basis of the contractor's proposal), the contracting officer and the

contractor should agree in writing as to a reasonable time for submittal of data.

c. Where system generated data is to be provided, the contracting officer should review the data

fields to be reported before the data is generated to ensure a common understanding of what is

needed. Inform the contractor that all data requests will be tracked and will be considered open

action items until the Government concurs that the data has been received and is complete.

d. If the data is not provided by the requested date or, if applicable, the agreed-to-date, and an

acceptable resolution cannot be achieved, the contracting officer must elevate the issue to

appropriate senior contracting management for both the Government and the contractor until an

appropriate resolution is reached. The contracting officer must document the outcome of the

elevation process in writing to include any revised dates for receipt of requested

data/documentation. See the DoD Sole Source Streamlining Tool Box for the recommended elevation

process, as well as other streamlining techniques.

e. If, after elevation, an acceptable resolution has not occurred or the contractor fails to provide the

data/documentation within the revised agreed-to date, the contracting officer may take remedial

actions:

for UCAs, contracting officers should consider reducing or suspending progress payments (FAR

32.503-6) when the contractor does not submit a timely qualifying proposal or has otherwise not

supported the established definitization schedule; and/or

assign an unsatisfactory rating for a singular performance problem, such as the failure to submit a

timely, complete and quality proposal (or subsequent data submissions), in connection with a UCA

when the problem is of such serious magnitude that it alone justifies an unsatisfactory Contractor

Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) rating in the assessment of Management

Responsiveness (Block 18d(1) for a Systems CPAR) or Business Relations (Block 18d for a NonSystems CPAR). Ratings must track to the Evaluation Ratings Definitions found in FAR

42.1503(h)(4).

f. Consistent with the notice given to contractors in the provision L-XXX, Cost Proposal Adequacy

and Structure, in situations when the contractor’s original proposal is inadequate and requires

revision or rework, contracting officers should consider whether to recognize as reasonable any

contractor costs associated with the revision/rework effort and must consider the nature and extent

of any proposal inadequacies when negotiating profit.

MP5315.404-1-90 Pricing Assistance or Pricing Assistance Waiver
(b) Requesting Pricing Assistance.

(1) “Full Pricing Assistance” means the price analyst accomplishes the majority of the pricing effort

(e.g. pricing case) for a specific contract action which meets or exceeds the thresholds identified in

DAFFARS 53153404-1-90(a). Submit the request for pricing assistance in accordance with the local

submission process. If no local process exists, submit requests for pricing assistance to the Pricing

Chief (or Chief of the Clearance and Program Support office where there is no designated Pricing

Chief). The contracting officer may also request full pricing assistance for actions below the

thresholds identified in DAFFARS 53153404-1-90(a) when additional pricing expertise is needed.

The Pricing Chief (or Chief of the Clearance and Program Support office where there is no

designated Pricing Chief) is the approval authority for those requests, on a case by case basis. See

the tailorable Request for Pricing Assistance or Pricing Assistance Waivertemplate.

(2) “Tailored Pricing Assistance” may also be requested for actions below the mandatory thresholds

(or in conjunction with a Pricing Assistance Waiver Request) and will be provided at the discretion of

the Pricing Chief (or Chief of the Clearance and Program Support office where there is no

designated Pricing Chief). See the tailorable Request for Pricing Assistance or Pricing Assistance

Waiver template. Examples of Tailored Pricing Assistance that may be available include:

(i) Assistance with completion of the Weighted Guidelines (DD Form 1547)

(ii) Pricing inputs for business/contract clearance

(iii) Cost proposal spreadsheet development/modeling

(iv) Defective pricing

(v) Assistance with structuring Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) clauses

(vi) Assistance with determination of final prices of incentive contracts

(vii) Claims

(viii) PNM review

(ix) Assistance with/review of reopener clauses

(x) Evaluating Performance Based Payments

(xi) Source selection support, including drafting and/or review of Sections L and M, drafting cost

sections of briefings and reports, and review of pricing volumes of proposals

(xii) Rate and factor reviews when DCMA assistance is not available

(3) Request pricing assistance as early as practicable in the acquisition process, but no later than

receipt of the proposal. For large dollar sole source acquisitions, the contracting officer is expected

to consult with the pricing office (or Clearance and Program Support office) to determine which

components of the L-XXX Cost Proposal Adequacy and Structure provision described in

MP5315.4-1.d, should be included in the RFP.

(c) Requesting a Pricing Assistance Waiver. Contracting officers may request a Pricing Assistance

Waiver for acquisitions which meet or exceed the required thresholds identified in DAFFARS

53153404-1-90(a). Submit the waiver request to the CAA in accordance with the local submission
process. If no local process exists, the waiver should be submitted to the CAA through the Pricing

Chief (or Chief of the Clearance and Program Support office where there is no designated Pricing

Chief). See the tailorable Request for Pricing Assistance or Pricing Assistance Waivertemplate .

MP5315.407-90 Contract Audit Follow-up (CAFU)

1. This Mandatory Procedure implements the following publications:

a. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-50, Audit Follow-up;

b. Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 7650.03, Follow-up on Government Accountability

Office (GAO), Inspector General of the Department of Defense (IG DoD), and Internal Audit Reports;

and

c. Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 7640.02, Policy for Follow-up on Contract Audit

Reports.

d. Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 7650.02, Engaging with the Government Accountability

Office (GAO) on GAO Audits.

The publications above establish policy and responsibilities, reporting requirements, and follow-up

procedures for contract audit reports issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO),

Inspector General of the Department of Defense (IG DoD), Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA),

and the other internal audit agencies (such as the Air Force Audit Agency (AFAA)).

2. SAF/AQCP manages the Department of the Air Force (DAF) CAFU program

3.CAFU requirements for DCAA audit reports:

a. SCO RESPONSIBILITIES: SCOs:

(i) Designate a CAFU focal point to manage the organization’s CAFU program in accordance with

these procedures. The CAFU Focal Point:

(a) Monitors and ensures proper and timely resolution and disposition of contract audit reports

within the focal point’s organization.

(b) Maintains current records on all reportable audits, from receipt through disposition. For open

reports, this includes written milestone plans comprised, as a minimum, of target resolution and

disposition dates.

(c) Ensures that acquisition personnel within their organization are properly trained in the use of

contract audit reports and the requirements of the CAFU program.

(d) Ensures that the organization’s semi-annual CAFU status report is prepared in accordance with

these procedures using the web-based CAFU tool and User’s manual located on the Defense

Contract Management Agency (DCMA) website. When the security classification of a contract or an

audit precludes the use of the DCMA website, SCOs must seek approval from SAF/AQCP to use

alternate means of reporting.
(e) Directs periodic evaluations of the organization’s CAFU program to determine whether they are

adequate and result in timely, appropriate resolution and disposition of audit reports.

b. CONTRACTING OFFICER (CO) RESPONSIBILITIES: The CO is responsible for reaching

agreement with the contractor and has wide latitude and discretion in that regard. Accordingly, the

procedure contained herein is structured in consonance with the independent, decision-making role

of the CO and the financial advisory role of the contract auditor. COs should give full consideration

to contract audit advice and must pursue timely and proper resolution and disposition of contract

audit reports. Resolution of contract audit reports, other than pre-award reports, is required by OMB

Circular A-50 to be accomplished within six months of report issuance. Disposition should take place

as soon as possible after resolution. Per DoDI 7640.02, Enclosure 3, Section 3.a, reportable audits

should normally be disposed of within 12 months after issuance. The CO must document the

disposition of all reported findings and recommendations in a signed and dated memorandum in

accordance with DoDI 7640.02, Enclosure 3, Section 3.b.

c. TRACKING OF AUDIT REPORTS: Contracting activities must track all contract audit reports.

Tracking of non-reportable audits may be accomplished using records maintained in the contract file

or in the CAFU on-line system. The designated focal point at each DAF contracting activity maintains

contract audit follow-up information on a current basis. The audit tracking information will normally

be managed centrally at MAJCOM/FLDCOM/DRU headquarters (except for HQ AFMC, where this

tracking will occur at the field activity). For auditor-determined final, indirect cost rate reports, a

report is considered received for follow-up tracking purposes when it is forwarded by the auditor to

the cognizant Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) for resolution and disposition.

d. REPORTING OF AUDIT REPORTS: Reportable audits are identified in the Glossary of DoDI

7640.02. The information to be reported on each audit is identified in Enclosure 4 of the same

regulation. MAJCOM/FLDCOM/DRU semi-annual status reports will be automatically transmitted

using the on-line CAFU system. The reports must cover the semi-annual periods ending 31 Mar and

30 Sep and must be completed in the on-line CAFU system no later than the end of the reporting

period. If there are no audits, a negative report must be prepared and submitted to the SAF/AQC

Workflow with a copy to the cognizant HCA Workflow. All activities must make every possible effort

to ensure the completeness and accuracy of their semi-annual reporting submission. Special

attention should be focused on ensuring the most accurate data is submitted on any audit listed as

unresolved and over 6 months old.

4. CAFU for GAO, IG DoD, and Internal Audit Reports: These procedures apply to audit reports

which disclose contract pricing issues and are issued directly to the buying activity. COs shall

provide:

a. An initial response to the GAO/IG DoD/Internal Audit Agency within 60 days of receipt of the audit

report; and

b. A copy of the initial response and the disposition documents to the following:

(i) SAF/FMPF, 1130 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1130. (ii) SAF/AQCP, 1060 Air

Force Pentagon, 4C169, Washington, DC 20330-1060. (iii) Cognizant HCA Workflow. (iii) Office of

the Inspector General, Department of Defense, Attn: DAIG, GAO Report Analysis, 4800 Mark Center

Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-1500.
MP5315.6 — UNSOLICITED PROPOSALS

MP5315.606-90 Receipt, Evaluation, and Disposition of Unsolicited Proposals

(a) Unsolicited proposals (UP) are defined at FAR 2.101 and described in FAR 15.603(c).

MAJCOMs/FLDCOMs/DRUs/DAFRCO and subordinate contracting units are considered to be the

cognizant points of contact for ensuring evaluation and disposition of a UP which is received at their

respective base/activity. Organizations that are part of the Headquarters Air Force (HAF) that

receive a submission that is considered a UP must forward it to SAF/AQC for assignment to the

proper Department of the Air Force (DAF) MAJCOM/FLDCOM/DRU/DAFRCO contracting unit

cognizant point of contact.

(b) Cognizant points of contact:

(1) Coordinate and process UPs. Use a cover sheet to help protect the UP from unauthorized

disclosure.

(2) Notify the SCO for any UP that requires wider DAF consideration.

(3) Maintain an accurate and complete record of the disposition of all UPs received.

(4) Ensure the appropriate evaluation office is aware of the FAR guidance for evaluating UPs and the

prohibitions and rules regarding copying, disclosing, and using restricted data contained in the

proposal. Limit the distribution of UPs to the appropriate number of evaluators required to conduct

a reasonable review. Maintain a record of the evaluators for each UP and the dates of their

evaluation.

(5) Ensure evaluators provide supporting rationale for their conclusions and recommendations. If the

recommendation is to accept the UP, ensure evaluators indicate whether funds are currently

available or programmed.

(6) Notify the offeror concerning results of the evaluation within 30 working days from receipt of the

UP. When the evaluation cannot be completed within 30 working days, send the offeror an interim

reply to include an estimated completion date.

(7) Advise the offeror that the favorable evaluation does not, in itself, contractually bind the

government.