DHA Home About DHA Human Resources Conferences TRICARE Contacts Feedback Site Map
 
Infinite Menus, Copyright 2006, OpenCube Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Proposal Evaluation Guide
April 2009

This guide is designed to provide you with instructions on how to properly plan and conduct proposal evaluations. This guide applies to Fair Opportunity evaluations and selections under all TMA non-purchased care contracts including the Defense Systems Integration, Design, Development, Operation, and Maintenance Services (D/SIDDOMS) 3, TRICARE Evaluation, Analysis, and Management Support (TEAMS), TRICARE Acquisition Automation and Resource Management Support (T/AARMS) and the GSA schedules, as prescribed by FAR 16.505. A Fair Opportunity evaluation and selection process is characterized by the following:

  • A single-round evaluation (no multiple rounds, or “down select” process),
  • No negotiations with the offerors,
  • No formal debrief of offerors is required for task/delivery orders valued at less than $5 million.
Proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the offeror’s ability to perform the prospective contract successfully. Past performance information is one indicator of an offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully. The evaluation criteria within the RFP/RFQ should include a description of the approach for evaluating past performance, including evaluating offerors with no relevant performance history, and shall provide offerors an opportunity to identify past or current contracts (including Federal, State, and local government and private) for efforts similar to the Government requirement. The solicitation shall also authorize offerors to provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror corrective actions. The Government shall consider this information, as well as information obtained from any other sources, when evaluating the offeror’s past performance. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (See FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)).

To have an effective evaluation, the evaluation criteria must be identified and defined in the request for proposal/quote (RFP/RFQ). All source selections should ensure that the Government selects the offeror proposing the best value to the Government. BEST VALUE can be determined by using one of two distinct processes: (1) “tradeoff” or (2) “lowest price, technically acceptable” (LPTA).
  • Tradeoff means, “in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror.” In essence this means that the Government will evaluate both technical and price/cost factors and will award to the offeror whose proposal offers the best value to the government, considering trade-offs between price/cost and technical factors.
  • Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable (LPTA) means that the award will be made to the offeror whose price is lowest among all proposals that were deemed to be technically acceptable:
      - Determining best value using the LPTA method may be appropriate where the requirement is not complex and the technical and performance risks are minimal, such as acquisitions where service, supply, or equipment requirements are well defined.
      - An LPTA approach is not appropriate for cost type contracts.
      - The evaluation factors and significant subfactors that establish the requirements of acceptability shall be set forth in the solicitation. The solicitation shall specify that award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors (See FAR 15.101-2(b)(1)) .
      - This method does not allow for trade-offs between price/cost and technical factors.
      - If factors such as labor mix and level of effort are to be important evaluation factors, the RFP/RFQ must require that these areas be quantified and addressed in detail in the technical proposal.
Whether based on the “tradeoff” or “lowest price, technically acceptable” method, successful proposal evaluation depends on four key elements:

1. Appropriate, well-defined evaluation criteria,

2. Evaluation rating standards that are understood and applied consistently among evaluators
and among all proposals being evaluated,

3. A careful review of the language in each proposal to ascertain how the offeror will meet the requirements of the RFP/RFQ and to identify assumptions (whether or not labeled as such), and statements that may indicate increased cost/price and/or risk to the Government. It is very important to read all the words in each proposal and clearly document any shortfalls or areas of risk.

4. Fully documented evaluation findings. All proposal evaluations generally consist of three phases:
  • Phase One – Planning
  • Phase Two – Forming The Evaluation Team
  • Phase Three – Conducting The Evaluation
1.0 Phase One – PLANNING

Step 1. Complete the Evaluation Criteria for Award. This is an integral part of the acquisition package and must accompany each PRW. The evaluation criteria to be used MUST be defined in the RFP/RFQ. Tailor and expand Appendix C: Evaluation Criteria of the Task Order Template (D/SIDDOMS 3, TEAMS, T/AARMS or GSA) to be specific to your requirement. These task order templates are available here

Step 2. Submit Evaluation Criteria to Acquisition Manager. Submit the completed Task Order procurement package to include Appendix C: Evaluation Criteria to your Acquisition Manager along with the Acquisition Package.

Whenever the Requiring Activity plans to use Contractors in any capacity during the evaluation, the acquisition package must specify that they will be used and must identify the specific company name and the specific role that the Contractor will perform. Failure to include this information in the acquisition package will preclude the Contractor from any exposure to the proposal or evaluation deliberations.

Phase Two - FORMING EVALUATION TEAM

Step 1. Determine the Team Approach.
  • Single Panel: one team handles both non-cost/price and cost/price evaluations. In this case the panel will not be given access to cost/price information until all evaluators have completed and documented the non-cost/price evaluation.
  • Two Panels: one team for non-cost/price evaluations and another separate team for cost/price evaluations. Under this approach, the non-cost/price panel will not have access to cost/price data throughout the evaluation. Both evaluations may be conducted concurrently of each other.
Step 2. Reserved

Step 3. Brief Panel Members on Their Responsibilities.
Panel members and any supporting contractor personnel must clearly understand their roles and responsibilities regarding the proposal evaluation. Government evaluation panel members and supporting contractor personnel must read and sign the appropriate Confidentiality Statement. Also, if the panel will be performing a Fair Opportunity Tradeoff evaluation under one of the TMA contract vehicles (T/AARMS, TEAMS or D/SIDDOMS3), all Government panel members are to read the standing Contracting Officer’s Guidance regarding Tradeoff evaluations and once they have read it, they are to sign the attached acknowledgement statement. The POC for the evaluation panel should collect and return the signed Confidentiality Statements and acknowledgement statements to their supporting AM&S AM/CM.

Step 4. Receive Evaluation Transmittal Forms.
Upon receipt of the names of the nominated panel members and all signed Confidentiality Agreements and acknowledgement statements, AM&S completes an Evaluation Transmittal Form for either an LPTA, Tradeoff, or Sole Source/Modification evaluation. This transmittal form is then sent to the requiring activity evaluation POC via e-mail along with the proposals received and other information to support the evaluation. Receipt of this form from AM&S is your trigger to begin the evaluation.

Step 5. Convene the Evaluation Panel.
After the Requiring Activity nominates the members of the evaluation panel which usually consists of the Task Manager (TM) and at least two other independent evaluators, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will make the final determination. The evaluation panel will perform a review of the proposals. Each evaluator must evaluate all proposals and comply with the directions provided in this guide and the FAR.

3.0 Phase Three– CONDUCTING THE EVALUATION

3.1 Conducting a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Evaluation
As stated earlier, Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable means that the award will be made to the offeror whose price is lowest among all proposals that were deemed to be technically acceptable. This method does not allow for trade-offs between cost/price and technical factors.

The lowest price technically acceptable source selection process is appropriate when best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price. (FAR 15.101-2)
Step 1. Prepare Individual Evaluation Worksheet.
The evaluators should complete an LPTA Evaluation Worksheet for EACH proposal received. The members of the evaluation team should each individually and independently fill out an LPTA Evaluation Worksheet for each proposal (example: 4 proposals X 3 Evaluators = 12 LPTA Evaluation Worksheets). Upon request, these completed worksheets will be submitted to AM&S. Unless requested, they will be retained at the requiring activity.

Step 2. Fill Out the Evaluation Board/Panel Consensus Form.
The Evaluators should collectively complete one LPTA Evaluation Board/Panel Consensus form for each evaluation. This form documents the evaluation team’s recommendation and serves as the basis for the Contracting Officer’s award decision. Fill out the Evaluation Board/Panel Consensus form using the Adjectival Ratings and apply a rating to each category for EACH proposal received.

Complete the Narrative Justification for Final Recommendation section of the Evaluation Board/Panel Consensus form once the evaluation has been completed and the recommendation has been made. It is very important to provide an adequate narrative justification supporting the final recommendation and an adequate narrative justification supporting the recommendation NOT to select the other proposals. The Evaluation Board/Panel Consensus form is to be signed by the Task Manager or the Program Manager and other team members.

  • Discuss the rationale for recommendation based on the acceptability of the recommended proposal or the unacceptability of any lower price proposal(s) that were not recommended.

  • Remarks should describe why the proposal was recommended for award and most importantly, why the other proposal(s) were NOT recommended.

  • The panel must indicate in their narrative justification, any increased cost/price and/or risk to the Government. For example, it is not uncommon to see the following proposal language (especially in the IT/service industry and larger contractors). All of these statements below could indicate increased cost/price and/or risk to the Government and must be pointed out in writing to the Contracting Officer as part of the evaluation process, so that if an offeror using this language is recommended for award, such wording can be stricken from the proposal prior to award.

Example #1:
“If the Government does not respond in 2 days, we will proceed and bill the Government.”
 
Example #2: “The Government shall pay for xxxxxx (things not mentioned in the RFP/RFQ).”
 
Example #3:
“The Government shall pay invoices IAW contractor’s milestone billings as shown (not IAW the RFP/RFQ).”

Step 3. Submit Forms to Acquisition Manager. When the evaluation process is complete, submit the Evaluation Transmittal Form(s), the Evaluator Worksheet(s) and the Evaluation Board/Panel Consensus form to your Acquisition Manager. The Acquisition Manager will then submit the forms to the Contracting Officer. These completed forms constitute the board/panel recommendation. The Contracting Officer will make the final decision on selection for award. In accordance with 10 U.S.C. §2330a, as amended by section 807 of the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act (FY 2008 NDAA), DoD components are required to capture and report certain data regarding purchase of services in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. To facilitate this process, requiring activities must also complete the information required in the Inventory of Purchased Services Form and include it as part of this package.

LPTA Evaluator Guidelines. Listed below are some DOs/DON’Ts to consider as you evaluate an LPTA proposal:

  • DO evaluate proposals against the RFP/RFQ requirements.


  • DO not make assumptions. Evaluate the text in the proposal.

  • DO look carefully at the text in the proposal that may include statements and/or assumptions that could indicate increased cost/price and/or risk to the Government.

  • DO document your reasoning for any potential increased risk to the Government on the evaluation form for the Contracting Officer’s review.

  • DO NOT compare proposals against one another. They must be evaluated individually against the evaluation factors in the RFP/RFQ.

  • DO NOT rank proposals. Only determine if they meet, or do not meet, the acceptable standards specified in the RFP/RFQ.
3.2 Conducting a Tradeoff Evaluation
A “Tradeoff” process is appropriate when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror. This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented in the file. (FAR 15.101-1).
The Tradeoff process is often used when conducting Fair Opportunity proposal evaluations for Task Orders issued using TMA’s suite of ID/IQ contracts (T/AARMS. TEAMS and D/SIDDOMS-3). All three contract vehicles are administered by the US Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity (USAMRAA), and USAMRAA has provided standing Contracting Officer guidance for conducting these type of evaluations. Evaluation Team members should always review this guidance prior to commencing any evaluation. Each Evaluator should complete and submit the “Acknowledgment of Receipt” page and return it to their supporting Acquisition Manager. Evaluators should keep this guidance for reference as necessary while conducting the evaluation.

Step 1. Prepare Individual Evaluation Worksheets.
The evaluators should complete a Technical Evaluation Worksheet (Tradeoff) and a Cost/Price Evaluation Worksheet for EACH proposal received. To ensure the integrity of the Tradeoff evaluation process, the technical portion of the evaluation is accomplished without regard to the cost/price data submitted in the proposals. If the evaluation is accomplished by separate cost/price and non-cost/price panels, the non-cost/price or technical panel will not have access to cost/price data throughout the evaluation. If a single panel does both non-cost/price and cost/price evaluations, the panel will not be given access to cost/price information until all evaluators have completed and documented the technical evaluation. Multiple worksheets are required for Tradeoff evaluations. For a Tradeoff evaluation, worksheets are completed as follows:

A. The members of the evaluation team should each individually and independently fill out a Technical Evaluation Worksheet (Tradeoff) for each proposal (example: 4 proposals X 3 Evaluators = 12 Technical Evaluation Worksheets). Upon request, these completed worksheets will be submitted to AM&S. Unless requested, they will be retained at the requiring activity. If there is not a separate cost/price evaluation team, the Technical Evaluation Worksheet is completed first, without evaluator knowledge of any cost or pricing data. This worksheet contains a section for each evaluation factor identified in the acquisition package. The worksheet provides space for evaluators to list the proposal’s strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies to support the rating you have given the proposal. When completing the worksheet, record specific comments, referring not only to the page and paragraph in the proposal that generated the comment, but also to the pertinent requirement in the Statement of Work (SOW). Once each factor has been evaluated, apply an adjectival rating to each category for each proposal received. Do not compare proposals against one another during this part of the Tradeoff evaluation. Evaluators are encouraged to document their efforts in obtaining past performance information. A Past Performance Evaluation Record is available for this purpose.

Since some people may want to “slice and dice” individual evaluator comments to facilitate the consensus process, AM&S has designed Tradeoff Evaluation Template in an Excel format. Sections from each individual Evaluator’s spreadsheet can be copied into another consolidated spreadsheet and the data grouped using the MS Excel data sort functions. (Hence, the columns to the right, outside the normal display area). During the consensus sessions, you can then project parts of this consolidated spreadsheet on the screen and the group as a whole can quickly pick comments that best represent the consensus position.

The Technical Evaluation Worksheets for Tradeoff evaluations were revised in 04/2008. To aid in the evaluation of proposals in response to RFPs developed prior to these revisions, the following archive formats are available:
Technical Evaluation Worksheet (Archive)
Tradeoff Evaluation Template in an Excel format (Archive)

B. The members of the evaluation team should each individually and independently fill out a Cost/Price Evaluation Worksheet for each proposal (example: 4 proposals X 3 Evaluators = 12 Cost/Price Evaluation Worksheets). Upon request, these completed worksheets will be submitted to AM&S. Unless requested, they will be retained at the requiring activity. If there is a separate cost/price evaluation team, the Cost/Price Evaluation Worksheet may be completed separately by the cost/price evaluation team and concurrently with the Technical Evaluation Worksheets. Then a single overall recommendation worksheet may be completed jointly based on “cross talk” discussions between the technical team and the cost/price team. If there is no separate cost/price evaluation team, the Cost/Price Evaluation Worksheet should be completed by the non-cost/price evaluation team after all evaluators have completed and documented the non-cost/price evaluation. The Cost/Price Evaluation Worksheet accomplishes two things:

  • It provides a framework for analysis of proposed labor and other cost/price factors and documents significant variance from the IGCE.

  • It also provides for an integration of both non-cost/price and cost/price aspects of the evaluation, resulting in an overall "individual" or "cross-talk based" recommendation that considers both technical and cost aspects of the proposal.

When completing the Cost/Price Evaluation Worksheet, evaluators should bear in mind that the current generation of TMA multiple award contracts such as D/SIDDOMS 3, TEAMS and TAARMS will have already had their labor rates certified as reasonable when the contract is/was awarded. While labor rates proposed in response to Fair Opportunity solicitations should be consistent with previously certified rates, evaluators should nevertheless pay attention to the labor categories being proposed to ensure that they are appropriate to accomplish the work described in the statement of work and the proposal.

The Evaluators should collectively complete one Tradeoff Evaluation Board/Panel Consensus Worksheet for each evaluation. This form documents the evaluation team’s recommendation and serves as the basis for the Contracting Officer’s award decision. Fill out the Evaluation Board/Panel Consensus form using the Adjectival Ratings and apply a rating to each category for EACH proposal received.

Complete the Narrative Justification for Final Recommendation section of the Evaluation Board/Panel Consensus form once the evaluation has been completed and the recommendation has been made. It is very important to provide an adequate narrative justification supporting the final recommendation and an adequate narrative justification supporting the recommendation NOT to select the other proposals. The Evaluation Board/Panel Consensus worksheet is to be signed by the Task Manager or the Program Manager and other evaluation panel members.

  • Discuss the rationale for recommendation based on the factors selected (strengths) and any cost/price trade-offs made if the lowest price proposal was not recommended. When recommending a proposal that is not lowest cost, describe WHY the added technical capability outweighs the cost differential from both an absolute dollar value and a percent differential.
Example #1:
“Vendor A was recommended over Vendors B and C, even though Vendor B and C offered prices ($X) and (Y%) lower than Vendor A, because the approach proposed by Vendor A will significantly reduce risk of performance impact to the system.”
 
Example #2:
“Vendor A was recommended over Vendor B, even though Vendor B’s price was ($X) and (Y%) lower than Vendor A, because the skills and experience of the staff proposed by Vendor A were directly related to this project, while those proposed by Vendor B have never worked with the MHS.”

  • Remarks should describe why the proposal was recommended for award and most importantly, why the other proposal(s) were NOT recommended.

  • Fill out this section even if you only received one offer.
Example #1:
“Vendor A’s non-cost/price proposal was deemed to be adequate because it describes a proven approach. The price proposal was in line with the IGCE. Therefore, award to Vendor A is recommended.”
 
Example #2:
“Vendor A’s non-cost/price proposal was deemed to be adequate because it describes a proven approach. However, the price proposal was 25% more than the IGCE.”

  • It is critical that the panel’s recommendation be fully supported by the narrative justification. The evaluation panel must make a solid “Business Case” for selecting one offeror over the others. This is particularly important in the following cases:

  • Where the panel recommends award to an offeror with the same overall rating as another, lower priced offeror. The business case must answer the questions: Why pay X% more, and what does the Government get for the price differential?

  • Where there are one or more offerors that meet the requirements of the RFP/RFQ, however the panel recommends award to a considerably higher priced offeror with a higher overall rating. The business case must answer the same questions: Why pay X% more, and what does the Government get for price differential?


  • Any price/cost in question should be brought to the attention of the Contracting Officer.

  • The panel must also indicate in their narrative justification, the use of any proposal language that constitutes an increased risk to the Government. For example, it is not uncommon to see the following proposal language (especially in the IT/service industry and larger contractors). All of these statements below could indicate increased cost/price and/or risk to the Government and must be pointed out in writing to the Contracting Officer as part of the evaluation process, so that if an offeror using this language is recommended for award, such wording can be stricken from the proposal prior to award.
Example #1:
“If the Government does not respond in 2 days, we will proceed and bill the Government.”
 
Example #2:
“The Government shall pay for xxxxxx (things not mentioned in the RFP/RFQ).”
 
Example #3:
“The Government shall pay invoices IAW contractor’s milestone billings as shown (not IAW the RFP/RFQ).”

Step 3. Submit Forms to Acquisition Manager. When the evaluation process is complete, submit the Evaluation Transmittal Form(s), the Evaluator Worksheet(s) and the Evaluation Board/Panel Consensus form to your Acquisition Manager. The Acquisition Manager will then submit the forms to the Contracting Officer. These completed forms constitute the board/panel recommendation. The Contracting Officer will make the final decision on selection for award. In accordance with 10 U.S.C. §2330a, as amended by section 807 of the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act (FY 2008 NDAA), DoD components are required to capture and report certain data regarding purchase of services in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. To facilitate this process, requiring activities must also complete the information required in the Inventory of Purchased Services Form and include it as part of this package.

Evaluator Guidelines for a Tradeoff Evaluation. Listed below are some DOs / DON’Ts to consider as you conduct a tradeoff evaluation:

  • DO evaluate proposals against the RFP/RFQ requirements.

  • DO NOT evaluate or compare proposals against one another during the initial evaluation. They must be evaluated individually against the evaluation factors in the RFP/RFQ. (Once a recommendation has been made, and the Evaluation Board/Panel Consensus form is being prepared, and only on the Evaluation Board/Panel Consensus form, the evaluation team may describe how the recommended proposal exceeds other competitors.)

Example:
What NOT to write!

Offeror #5’s approach is not nearly as effective as Offeror #2.
Offeror #4 is equally as capable as Offeror #3.
This proposal was significantly stronger than all the others.


Example:
What TO write!

Offeror #5’s approach does not meet CMM Level 2 technical requirements as defined in Section C.4.2. because……
Offeror #2 offers their employees 2 weeks of paid time off to attend training sessions every year. This encourages retention and staff growth.

  • DO ensure that it is clear how your comment relates to the evaluation factor.

  • DO not make assumptions. Evaluate the text in the proposal.

  • DO look carefully at the text in the proposal that may include statements and/or assumptions that could indicate increased cost/price and/or risk to the Government.

  • DO give each proposal the same consideration up front.

  • The name of the offeror should not influence (positively or negatively) the evaluator’s comments or ratings, except when evaluating past performance.

  • DO document your reasoning for any potential increased risk to the Government on the evaluation form for the Contracting Officer’s review.

  • DO provide detailed comments and accurate references.

  • Comments should be complete, clear, and detailed enough that the Contracting Officer is able to determine the evaluator’s intent without having to contact them.

Example:
What NOT to write!

Offeror #2, page 7, not where we are going.
NOTE: This meaning would not be clear to the CO.


Example:
What TO write!

Offeror #2, page 7, para 3. The Offeror does not appear to understand the direction of the program nor the intent of the RFP and has specified an approach which has been proven unsuccessful on this program in the past.
NOTE: This description stands on its own.

Example:
What NOT to write!

Offeror #3 offers great resumes.
NOTE: Too vague – How are they great?


Example:
What TO write!

The Key Personnel resume presented by Offeror #3 offers the Government a strong technical staff member with 13 years of TRICARE experience and 25 years of management experience.
NOTE: This describes how the experience directly relates.

  • DO use references to limit amount of time and space that each comment requires.
Example:
What NOT to write!

Offeror #2’s approach to MCSE training is overly burdensome for the Government. Offeror #2 states, “XYZ Inc. proposes to examine the market to determine if the requirement for an MCSE training session is required. Once they have determined that there might be a need…”


Example:
What TO write!

The training approach presented in section 4.3.5 of Offeror #2’s proposal relies on the Government participants rather than contractor responses as required by section 4.2.7 of the RFP.

  • DO provide comments that are clear and “plainly” written.

  • Avoid using language that may be too “technical”.

  • Avoid using language that is jargon-laden and legalistic. This will not clearly convey important information but may cause confusion and misinterpretation.

  • Avoid undefined or overused abbreviations and acronyms.

  • DO be fair and consistent in the proposal evaluation.

  • If an item is a strength/weakness for one proposal it should also be noted as a strength/weakness when it appears in other proposals.

  • Be Critical, but Fair in your evaluation.

  • Do not “take it easy” or be overly harsh. Fairly evaluate all proposals against the requirements of the RFP/RFQ.

  • Always ask yourself: How is the contractor going to meet the requirements of the RFP/RFQ?

  • Simply stating that, “I will comply” with the requirements does not explain how they intend to accomplish compliance with the requirements.

  • Do not make assumptions. Evaluate the text in the proposal.

  • Always ask yourself: If I was present at the debrief, would I be able to defend this assessment?

  • Ensure that your comments are concise, clear and professionally stated.

  • Antagonistic or inflammatory comments can lead to a protest and must be avoided. This is important in all materials prepared as part of the evaluation because all notes, worksheets, and materials are “discoverable” in a protest. This means, that if a protest occurs, the Government is legally obligated to provide these materials to the protesting contractor.

These mistakes can lead to a protest.

  • Rating an idea as a positive in one proposal and the same idea as a negative in another.
  • Rating based on criteria not included in the RFP/RFQ.

Videotaping and Audiotaping
Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should evaluator discussions or deliberations be videotaped or audiotaped!

Step 1. Fill Out the Evaluation Recommendation for Modification or Sole Source. Fill out the Evaluation Recommendation for Modification or Sole Source form using the Adjectival Ratings and apply a rating to each category for the proposal.

Step 2. Submit Form to Acquisition Manager. When the evaluation process is complete, submit the Evaluation Transmittal Form and the Evaluation Recommendation for Modification or Sole Source form to your Acquisition Manager. The Acquisition Manager will then submit the forms to the Contracting Officer. These completed forms constitute the board/panel recommendation. The Contracting Officer will make the final decision on selection for award. In accordance with 10 U.S.C. §2330a, as amended by section 807 of the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act (FY 2008 NDAA), DoD components are required to capture and report certain data regarding purchase of services in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. To facilitate this process, requiring activities must also complete the information required in the Inventory of Purchased Services Form and include it as part of any Sole Source recommendation package.
“On October 1, 2013, the Department of Defense established the Defense Health Agency (DHA) to manage the activities of the Military Health System. These activities include those previously managed by TRICARE Management Activity (TMA), which was disestablished on the same date. During the next several months, all TMA websites will change to reflect the new DHA. We appreciate your patience during this transition."
DoD Seal
7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, VA 22042-5101
The appearance of hyperlinks to external Web sites does not constitute endorsement by the TRICARE Management Activity of these Web sites or the information, products or services contained therein. For other than authorized government activities, TRICARE Management Activity does not exercise any editorial control over the information you may find at other locations. Such links are provided consistent with the stated purpose of this DoD Web site. Accessibility/Section 508