1. Requirements

2. Rationale

An established evaluation process includes criteria by which all proposals are weighed allowing the results to be compared equally and as objectively as possible. A process with pre-set criteria helps ensure that each proposal is evaluated and the final choice made based on the most important features and capabilities required for project success.

3. Guidance

The base set of suppliers may come from a variety of sources, including market analyses of software suppliers, pre-existing supplier lists, or simply the set of respondents to a request for proposals (RFP). 

"In some organizations, acquirers may solicit proposals from a limited number of suppliers to reduce their cost and efforts for the solicitation. Acquirers should, however, ensure that they include suppliers who are capable of meeting the requirements and that a sufficient number of suppliers are included to provide a competitive environment. This competition enhances the leverage of the acquirer in achieving its objectives (e.g., providing different approaches to meeting requirements). In some cases, the organization pre-qualifies preferred suppliers from which an acquirer can choose provided the preferred suppliers meet the specific needs of the project. Choosing from preferred suppliers can greatly reduce the effort and time required for solicitation.

"Depending on applicable regulations and project characteristics, the acquirer can determine to pursue a sole-source acquisition rather than a competitive bid. Acquirers should document the rationale for determining potential suppliers, particularly in the case of sole-source selection."

"An established procedure and set of evaluation criteria is used to select the most qualified supplier for a new contract. The selection procedure includes the evaluation criteria as well as the method for evaluating proposals. Supplier selection decisions "must be carefully managed in accordance with regulations governing the fairness of the selection process."

Supplier selection procedure

The selection procedure may be documented in a source selection plan that contains the following suggested sections:

•    Roles and Responsibilities.
•    Facilities/Security capabilities.
•    Criteria for Selection.
•    Geographic Location.
•    Staff available to work on the contract.
•    Proposal Requirements.
•    Selection Process.

  sweref
  062 062

Additionally, the selection procedure normally includes a source selection authority (SSA) as appropriate for the size or priority of the project

If the selection process includes a period for questions or a period for negotiations with potential suppliers before a selection is made, those processes and any bounding regulatory restrictions that apply should be included in the process documentation.

The NASA Systems Engineering Handbook

• "Give adequate weight to evaluating the capability of disciplines that could cause mission failure (e.g., hardware, software, thermal, optics, electrical, mechanical).
• "Conduct a pre-award site visit of production/test facilities that are critical to mission success.
• "Distinguish between "pretenders" (good proposal writers) and "contenders" (good performing organizations). Pay special attention to how process descriptions match relevant experience and past performance. While good proposals can indicate good future performance, lesser quality proposals usually predict lesser quality future work products and deliverables.
• "Assess the contractor's Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) and other items submitted with the proposal based on evaluation criteria that include quality characteristics (e.g., complete, unambiguous, consistent, verifiable, and traceable)."

Proposal evaluation criteria

Consider the following possible criteria:

• Cost estimation comparisons.
• Evaluation of how well proposed solutions meet the requirements (including interface and technology requirements, NPR 7150.2 requirements, and others in the solicitation).
• Technical approach.
• Available staff and associated skills.
• Past performance including how well cost, schedule, performance, and technical requirements were met.
• Customer satisfaction.
• Software engineering and management capabilities.
• Prior expertise on similar projects (domain expertise).
• Available resources (facilities, hardware, software, training, etc.).
• Delivery processes and procedures.
• Process maturity.
• Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) ratings (see SWE-032).
  • Check the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) Published Appraisal Results (PARs) to confirm non-expired rating (http://sas.sei.cmu.edu/pars

4. Small Projects

No additional guidance is available for small projects. The community of practice is encouraged to submit guidance candidates for this paragraph.

5. Resources

6. Lessons Learned

A documented lesson from the NASA Lessons Learned database notes the following:

Inheritance Review of the Mars Phoenix Flight System. Lessons Learned Entry 1807: "Despite the unusually large percentage of the Phoenix design and hardware that was inherited from previous Mars spaceflight projects, the format used for Phoenix project system and subsystem Inheritance Reviews (IRs) proved adequate to mitigate the risk within technical and programmatic constraints. A mission assurance checklist provided acceptance criteria to validate the flight worthiness of each subsystem. Consider using the Phoenix Inheritance Review format as a model for future missions that feature substantial inheritance. Plan carefully for the collection, analysis, and eventual archiving of records documenting the system and subsystem pedigree."

1. "Soliciting the participation of the spacecraft system contractor in evaluating the system compatibility of the inherited or commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) product functionality with project Level 1 and Level 2 requirements.
2. "Conducting a mission assurance review and system engineering review in concert with the subsystem IRs.
3. "Utilizing a mission assurance checklist that provided acceptance criteria to validate the flight worthiness of each subsystem. The checklist was derived from the form (Hardware Review & Certification Record) that JPL uses to assess the risk to flight hardware posed by mechanical or electrical integration with the system (Reference (3)).
4. "Providing the project with a recommended course of action (e.g., modification or additional testing) in cases where a subsystem did not meet the checklist's acceptance criteria."

   sweref
   570 570