Source Selection Decision Memorandum

SUBJECT: Source Selection Decision under Solicitation <number and title of solicitation>

I. Background

The subject solicitation was issued on <insert date> and closed on < insert date>.

Number of amendments issued: <insert number>.

Number of timely proposals received: <insert number>.

Source selection process: <insert either “Lowest price technically acceptable” OR

“Tradeoffs”>

The independent Government cost estimate was: <insert amount>.

II. Evaluation

As Source Selection Authority (SSA), I agree with the assessments and ratings assigned by
the <insert name of team, panel or board, e.g., Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB)> to
each of the proposals as summarized in the matrix below [add, if applicable, “except as
noted” and explain the basis for any disagreement]:

Subfactor Offeror 1 Offeror 2 Offeror 3

1. <Insert titles of subfactors if <Insert ratings> <Add columns
tradeoffs used or acceptability as needed>
requirements if LPTA>>
2.
3. <Add rows as needed>
<Insert “Cost” OR “Price”> $ $ $

III. Award Decision

[Provide narrative description of the Source Selection Authority’s comparative assessment of

proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation. Include the rationale for any
business judgments (see FAR15.308).
Note that tradeoffs are not permitted under the lowest price technically acceptable process
(see FAR 15.101).

If using a tradeoff process, provide a cost/technical tradeoff analysis that logically leads to
the award decision. The tradeoff analysis should be documented with detailed narrative
explaining the relevant facts and supporting rationale. Statements of conclusion based on
ratings alone are not acceptable. The tradeoff analysis must explicitly justify a price
premium regardless of the superiority of the selected offeror’s technical or non-cost rating.
This justification is required even when the solicitation indicates that non-cost factors are
more important than cost/price. The justification must clearly state what benefits or
advantages the government will receive for the added cost/price and why it is in the
government’s best interest to expend the additional funds. Where it is determined that the
non-cost benefits offered by the higher priced offeror are not worth the price premium, an
explicit justification is also necessary. In this case, the analysis must show why it is
reasonable in light of the significance of the differences to pay less money for a proposal of
lesser technical merit.

See the following sample language. In all cases, ensure that your narrative fits the facts of
your procurement action.

Example 1, Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Process:

In accordance with the lowest priced technically acceptable selection process, I hereby select
<insert name of offeror> for award. <Insert name of offeror> is the lowest evaluated
proposal price. The technical proposal meets or exceeds the acceptability standards for non-
cost factors>.

Example 2, Tradeoff Process:

A. Independent Analysis

I have accomplished an independent analysis of the information provided in order to

accomplish an integrated assessment of the findings of my SSEB. My findings, by factor
and subfactor, are as follows:

Factor 1 – <Insert Factor Name>

Subfactor 1 – <Insert Subfactor Title>

In this, the most important subfactor of Factor 1, <Offeror’s Name> was rated as
Excellent and determined to have the highest rating of all Offerors. <Offeror’s Name>
documented a detailed and in-depth description of their . . . <Offeror’s Name> also
identified their ability to respond promptly to . . . I also have Significant Confidence in

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Developed by Virtual Acquisition Office™ for federal government use and customization
their ability to perform as required under this subfactor. <Offeror’s Name> received an
Acceptable rating, and I have Confidence in their ability to meet the requirements of this
subfactor. <Offeror’s Name> was rated as Unacceptable due to their . . . <Offeror’s
Name> was rated Unacceptable because . . . <Offeror’s Name> did not . . ., which
resulted in an Unacceptable rating. <Offeror’s Name> was rated as Unacceptable
because . . . As these four offerors were rated unacceptable, I have Low Confidence in
their ability meet our requirements without changes to their proposed solutions.
Accordingly, for this subfactor I find <Offeror’s Name> to offer the more exceptional
capabilities.

Subfactor 2 – <Insert Subfactor Title>

[Repeat as shown in the example above for each remaining subfactor.]

Factor 2 – Past Performance

For Past Performance, both <Offeror’s Name> and <Offeror’s Name> were found to be
the most highly rated by their previous customers, resulting in my having High
Confidence in their ability to perform. <Insert the major findings that drove the rating>.
<Offeror’s Name> and <Offeror’s Name> <insert the major findings that drove the
rating>, earning a rating of Significant Confidence. I have Confidence in both <Offeror’s
Name> and <Offeror’s Name> abilities to perform, but expect that some government
intervention would be necessary. <Insert the major findings that drove the rating>.
Accordingly, for this factor, I find both <Offeror’s Name> and <Offeror’s Name> be above
the other Offerors as they provide the highest of confidence in their ability to perform
based on successful past performance.

Factor 3 – Cost/Price

<Insert a summary of what was asked for and how the cost/price factor was evaluated>

All proposals were considered complete, reasonable, and realistic. <Offeror’s Name>
evaluated price was found to be the lowest, at $x,xxx,xxx. <Offeror’s Name> was
evaluated at $x,xxx,xxx, approximately .9% higher than <Offeror’s Name>. At an
evaluated price of $x,xxx,xxx, <Offeror’s Name> was found to be 1.1% higher than the
next lowest priced Offeror (<Offeror’s Name>) and approximately 2% higher than the
lowest priced Offeror (<Offeror’s Name>). <Offeror’s Name> evaluated price of
$x,xxx,xxx is approximately 5.1% higher than the next lowest (<Offeror’s Name>) and
7.2% higher than the lowest priced Offeror. <Offeror’s Name> evaluated price of
$x,xxx,xxx was 7.2% higher than the next lowest (<Offeror’s Name>) and 14.9% higher
than the lowest evaluated price. <Offeror’s Name> provided the highest evaluated
price, at $x,xxx,xxx. This is 30.4% higher than the next lowest Offeror (<Offeror’s
Name>) and approximately 49.8% higher than the lowest evaluated price. [NOTE: Using
percentages may not be the best way for your particular evaluation to express the

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Developed by Virtual Acquisition Office™ for federal government use and customization
 differences between the offerors. Use the method utilized in the evaluation and
briefing.]>

B. Integrated Assessment and Source Selection

After consideration of the information provided to me by the SSEB and after

accomplishing an integrated assessment, it is my determination that <Offeror’s Name>
clearly offers the "best value" proposal for fulfilling our requirements for the <Insert
Procurement Title>. Taking into consideration the established and stated order of
importance, <Offeror’s Name> attained the highest overall rating in the most <Insert
number> important subfactors under <Insert Factor Title>. Furthermore, they attained
the highest rating possible in the past performance factor. I found the remaining
Offeror, <Offeror’s Name>, to be rated lower than <Offeror’s Name> in the three most
important subfactors of Factor 1, and lower in Factor 2. <Offeror’s Name> was also
evaluated as having a significantly higher cost than <Offeror’s Name>. Therefore, of the
Offerors eligible to receive this award, <Offeror’s Name> was rated higher overall and
had the lowest evaluated price.

In my integrated assessment, I looked closely at both the merit and confidence ratings
achieved by the offerors across the spectrum of evaluation factors and subfactors to
select, with certainty, the most highly rated and qualified offeror for this project.

This source selection decision briefing utilized a “blind” format, meaning that the
identities of all offerors were masked to me at all times until after my decision was
completed. Offerors were identified only by randomly assigned letters, to prevent any
chance for systematic indication. At no time during my decision-making process did I
request a recommendation from the SSEB.

In summary, my integrated assessment of all offerors revealed that <Offeror’s Name>

provided a proposal that generated the best overall value to the Government and
yielded the greatest level of confidence that successful performance of the
<Procurement Title> will be realized.

<Signature> ______________
[Insert Name] Date
<Insert title – either “Contracting Officer” OR “Source Selection Authority,” if someone other
than the CO is designated as the SSA>

Attachments: [include as appropriate]

Technical Evaluation Report of Initial Proposals
Cost/Price Analysis of Initial Proposals

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Developed by Virtual Acquisition Office™ for federal government use and customization
Competitive Range Determination
Evaluation Report of Final Proposal Revisions
Cost/Price Analysis of Final Proposal Revisions

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Developed by Virtual Acquisition Office™ for federal government use and customization