Pilot authority for sourcing innovative commercial solutions. Can use both FAR and Non-FAR authorities.
Alternative Authorities Statutory authorities not included in the FAR.

Alternative Authorities
The Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO) is an authority for acquiring innovative and commercial solutions. Section 880 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328) authorized DHS and GSA to implement a pilot program to competitively procure innovative commercial items, technologies, and services using CSO procedures. This authority can be implemented as FAR or non-FAR based, the authority is silent on the direction.
- High barriers of entry and low incentives (in part due to onerous FAR terms and conditions) restrict non-traditional contractors from providing innovative solutions to the government
- Streamlined acquisition process
- Simplified contract terms
- Attracts start-up companies and others who have not previously worked with U.S. Government
- Can be used as either FAR or non-FAR based
- SMALL BUSINESS BENEFIT: Lowers the barrier for entry for non-traditional companies to do work with the U.S. Government by targeting innovative commercial products while not requiring the commercial FAR clauses
Authority targeting innovative companies, academia and non-profits to solve complex government data challenges. Agencies use an interagency agreement with DOC's NTIS.

Alternative Authorities
The National Technical Information Service's (NTIS) joint venture partnership authority, within the Department of Commerce, leverages leading, innovative companies, academia, and non-profits to help solve complex data challenges within the federal government. Agencies can leverage this authority by entering into an interagency agreement with NTIS.
- Complex data challenges focusing on critical mission priorities using applied data science innovations in areas such as artificial intelligence, machine learning and predictive analytics.
- Provides agencies quick access to the NTIS authority.
- Facilitates identification of the problem to be solved.
- Delivers innovative solutions through collaboration with vetted stakeholders.
- Accelerates results through the use of Agile methodologies.
Non-FAR authority sanctioning commercial business practices for research, prototype and limited production efforts.

Alternative Authorities
Other Transaction (OT) authorities were created to give DoD the flexibility necessary to adopt and incorporate business practices that reflect commercial industry standards and best practices into its award instruments. As of the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Section 815, the DoD currently has permanent authority to award OT under (10 U.S.C. 2371) for (1) Research, (2) Prototype, and (3) Production Purposes. 11 other agencies have OT authority - including DHS and NASA.
- Allows for rapid procurement from non-traditional contractors without FAR-based competition
- Rapid procurement
- Non-FAR competition
- Iterative prototyping reduces risk and cost
- SMALL BUSINESS BENEFIT: Focuses on reducing barriers for non-traditional or new entrant small business contractors participating to a significant extent
Industry competes to solve difficult problems when money, prestige or access is up for grabs.

Alternative Authorities
The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act, Public Law 111-358, is available to all federal agencies and invites ideas and solutions through crowdsourcing. Prize competitions are useful when ingenuity, flexibility, and collaboration are desired and other government contract instruments are not likely to attract sufficiently innovative solutions. Prize competitions are successful at attracting individuals, small disadvantaged businesses and nontraditional contractors. Prize competitions are not suited for routine services or well understood requirements.
Collects ideas and solutions from the public and encourages cross-sector collaboration to respond to ideation, design, and visualization problems. Applicable problem sets can arise from the business, data analytics, ideation, design, scientific, technology, software, and information technology sectors. Prizes can be monetary (above $1M cash prize with Head of Agency approval only) and non-monetary in nature (e.g., recognition, ability to participate in follow-on actions).
- Establishes an ambitious goal and pays only for success without having to predict which team or approach is most likely to succeed
- Reduces barriers to participation in an agile process, starting small with the ability to scale
- Better aligns risk/reward profiles with the way advanced technology industries seek compensation and profit
- Increases opportunities for crowdsourcing and participation for cross-functional teams to deliver creative solutions to agency needs
- Encourages partnerships and citizen-solvers to innovatively solve problems with breakthrough solutions
- Federal agencies create partnerships with other agencies and organizations (nonprofit and for-profit) and bring in expertise to (i) inform a prize "ask," (ii) think through evaluation criteria, (iii) judge submissions, (iv) serve as mentors to solvers, and (v) broaden communication channels
- Reduces innovators’ burden of intellectual property ownership requirements; allows government flexibility with regard to ownership of solutions.
- SMALL BUSINESS BENEFIT: Entrepreneurs and small businesses wishing to participate in federal procurement have the opportunity to gain experience with a challenge.
- Website: Challenge.gov Toolkit
- Authorizing Legislation: America COMPETES Reauthorization Act
- Case Study: Digital Service Contracting Professional Training and Development Program
- Case Study: DHS TSA Passenger Screening Algorithm Challenge
- Case Study: DHS InnoPrize Program Prize Challenges
- Website: US Army’s xTech Search COVID-19 Ventilator Challenge
Competitive procedure to both link small businesses with government requirements and facilitate commercialization of innovative technology.

Alternative Authorities
The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program is a three-phased competitive awards-based program that enables small businesses to explore their technological potential and provides the incentive to profit from its commercialization of Research/Research and Development (R/R&D) efforts.
- Phase I establishes the technical merit, feasibility, and commercial potential of the proposed R/R&D efforts. During this phase, each awards are capped at $250,000 ceiling and has a maximum duration of six (6) months.
- Phase II continues the Phase I effort and demonstrates the scientific and technical merit of the R/R&D effort and its commercial potential. During this phase, each awards are capped at $1,000,000 ceiling and have a maximum duration of two (2) years.
- Phase III is for the small business to pursue commercialization objectives resulting from the Phase I/II efforts. During this phase work may be for products, production, services, R/R&D, or any combination thereof. The work does not have any SBIR related restrictions on the value funded, duration or size of small business performing the work. See SBIR Phase III Sole Source Awards card in the PTAI for additional details.
Phase I and II awards can only be made by participating agencies listed here. Any agency, including non-SBIR agencies, can issue a Phase III award described in the "SBIR Phase III Sole Source Awards" card.
Encourages domestic small businesses to engage in Federal R/R&D that has the potential for commercialization.
- By including qualified small businesses in the nations R&D arena, high-tech innovation is stimulated, and the United States advances entrepreneurial spirit as it meets its specific research and development needs
- By acquiring or further developing products and services developed under SBIR awards, the products and services leverage prior R/R&D and expedite the process to meet new Federal requirements
- SMALL BUSINESS BENEFIT: Increases opportunities for small businesses to develop and bring their products to market, thereby strengthening the small business industrial base
- Website: About SBIR
- Website: SBIR Resources for Federal Agencies
- Website: SBIR Participating Agencies
- Website: DHS SBIR
- Website: GSA SBIR
- Website: Army SBIR
- Website: Defense SBIR
- Workforce Guide: NASA SBIR
- Video: NASA Between Two FARS Episode 24 : The 1, 2, 3's of SBIR Contracting
- Success Stories: NASA SBIR Success Stories
Sole-source awards without further written justification to leverage the results of SBIR Phase I and II investments.

Alternative Authorities
Small Business Innovation (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Phase III awards provide a rapid and agile approach for all federal agencies to leverage the Research/Research & Development (R/R&D) investments made through competitive SBIR/ STTR Phase I and/or II awards. Agencies are authorized, to the greatest extend practicable, to make awards to SBIR/ STTR Program participants for work that derives from, extends, or completes efforts made under either a prior SBIR or STTR Phase I or Phase II funding agreement.
The following are examples of the types of activities that constitute SBIR Phase III work:
- Commercial application including R/R&D, testing and evaluation of services or technologies.
- SBIR-derived commercial or modified commercial products or services intended for use by the Federal Government.
- Continuation of Phase I or Phase II SBIR work.
See “Use Cases and Example Documents” for specific agency applications.
- Provides for the rapid procurement of the production and/or delivery of products, and/or services stemming from SBIR/STTR investments.
- Provides options for acquisition programs to adapt or further develop previously developed internal or cross agency technology.
- Reduces duplication of effort, building on previous investment.
- Offers opportunity to cross-pollinate or develop lateral applications of innovative technologies into new markets.
- Enables “bridging the gap” between R&D and commercialization.
- Reduces pre-award administrative effort and award development time.
SBIR/STTR Phase III awards can increase efficiency and deliver value and savings to agencies and their R/R&D programs by leveraging the Government’s R/R&D investment in previous SBIR Phase I and/or Phase II efforts. This also maximizes the return on investment made through the SBIR/STTR programs.
- Flexible and rapid access to promising R&D investments
- Any agency, including non-SBIR agencies, can issue a Phase III award.
- Awards can be based on either a SBIR/STTR Phase I or II award.
- There is no limit on number, duration, contract type, or dollar value of Phase III awards, and there is no time limit by which a Phase III award must be made following a Phase I or Phase II award.
- Agency is not required to execute a sole source justification under FAR Part 6 or publicize a planned or executed sole source award under FAR Part 5 if the award is issued under the authority of 15 U.S. Code § 638(r)(4).
- Phase III awards may be issued to other-than-small businesses.
-
Reduced technical risk and delivery time
- Proof of concept already established.
- Prototype or working model may have been developed.
- Testing and evaluation is likely to have been accomplished.
- Adaptions to an existing system or component can reduce development effort.
- Incremental improvements to address key performance parameters can yield alternative and/or cheaper innovative solution.
- Small Business Benefit
- Reduces barriers to entry helping disadvantaged, woman owned, and other small businesses concerns (SBC) become established sources for the Federal government.
- Provides capital to help SBC’s “bridge the gap” between R&D and the commercial marketplace.
- Expands marketplace options to SBCs.
- Example of work “derived” from prior SBIR phase: NOAA Uncrewed Tools to Improve Hurricane Forecast Models
- Example of work that “extends” a prior SBIR phase: DOE Electric Vehicle Spinoff
- Example of work that “completes” a prior SBIR phase: DOE sensing technology for rapid response inspections
- Success Stories: DOE - SBIR Phase III Success Stories
- Success Stories: DOT - SBIR Phase III Advanced Fatigue Modeling for Individual Differences
- Success Stories: DHS Success Stories
- Success Stories: NOAA Phase III Commercialization
- Success Stories: SBIR.gov Success Stories (Includes both Phase II and III Guides and material)
- Video: NASA SBIR Phase III
- Guide: NASA Phase III Guidelines
- Guide: Air Force Phase III Desk Reference
- Guide: Navy Phase III Guidebook
- Guide: DHS SBIR Phase III Job Aid
- Guide: AFWERX Guides - Executing SBIR Phase III Contracts
- Policy: GAO Decision (August 28, 2020) ASRC Federal Data Network Technologies, LLC (File B-418765)
Market Research Strengthening communication and increasing transparency between industry and government during acquisition planning.
Early disclosure of quality government cost estimates provide for better alignment of industry capabilities and government requirements.

Market Research
Independent Government Cost Estimates (IGCEs) are often developed during the procurement process and drive many decisions in the federal acquisition strategy even when they are done poorly. To take some of gamesmanship out of the buying process, consider releasing the Government's "affordability."
Here is sample Affordability text to include in solicitations: OFFER AFFORDABILITY The Government seeks offers (or quotes) with a total price less than $10M. Offerors (or quoters) should not interpret this figure as a ceiling (or as a floor) on offers; rather, this information is provided as a courtesy to prospective offerors. The Government may select an offer for award with a price below, at, or exceeding this figure if it finds that offer provides the best value and funds are available
- Having robust IGCEs or providing the Government's "affordability" helps level the playing field, removes some of the inherent incumbent advantages, ensures a more competitive or realistic pool of offerors, and makes the process more efficient
- Increases transparency
- Aligns proposals with real requirements
- Increases cost realism
- SMALL BUSINESS BENEFIT: Helps ensure small businesses understand the anticipated magnitude of each effort so they can decide whether to invest significant bid and proposal costs
- Workforce Guide: USDS’ Agile Team Estimator
- Workforce Guide: FAI Independent Government Cost Estimate
- Workforce Guide: DOI Independent Government Cost Estimate
- GAO Report: GAO-17-398
- Solicitation: DHS USCIS myUSCIS Request for Proposal (RFP, pg. 56)
- Solicitation: DHS CBP TASPD Request for Quote (RFQ), pg. 134
- Solicitation: DHS USCIS QISD Fair Opportunity Notice (FON), pg. 46
- Video: PILCast Episode # 7 Affordability
Facilitation of a multi-functional integrated project team through the performance-based acquisition process.

Market Research
A facilitated requirements development workshop is a collaborative engagement where the integrated project team planning for a specific acquisition spends a block of time together, with other stakeholders as well as a facilitator/coach, working through various aspects of the requirement. The facilitator/coach walks the team through development of the project vision/mission, high-level objectives, performance requirements and performance-based strategies for the agency project and implementation roadmap.
DOD manages the Services Acquisition Workshop (SAW) program and GSA manages the Civilian Services Acquisition Workshop (CSAW) program, including train-the-trainer opportunities. Modeled after the CSAWs, the DHS Procurement Innovation Lab (PIL) facilitates PIL Acquisition Workshops (PAWS).
In a workshop, the facilitator enables the team to effectively arrive at consensus on key decision points for the project’s requirement and resulting acquisition. These workshops are typically conducted very early in market research. PAWs, which may be as short as one day or as long as one week, are workshops dedicated to discussing and finalizing the market research, finalizing requirements development, and formulating procurement strategies. The SAW and CSAW workshops (no cost to federal customers) typically take a full week or two with the team. Workshops have been effectively used for professional, human resources, information technology, construction, and medical services acquisitions. Additionally, workshops have been used for manufacturing challenges as well as for policy development. Federal Agencies can implement facilitated requirements development workshops within their organization and it can be done virtually or in-person.
- Workshops enable easier adoption of performance-based acquisition (see FAR 2.101) steps.
- Facilitated workshops can help teams develop more precise and concise requirements.
- The workshops force teams to work together, in smaller teams and in a group setting, through the development process. Siloed functional roles can lead to suboptimized requirements development that fails to reflect an organized demand signal.
- Decisions are not continually delayed for another meeting down the road, they can happen within the workshop which will streamline the procurement process.
- Enhanced awareness of best practices in market research, requirements writing, and source selection-- all tailored to the specific needs of the team, the project, and the acquisition.
- Effective collaboration of integrated project teams
- Better defined requirements and acquisition strategies
- Reduced procurement administrative lead times
- Improved project management and better performance outcomes
- Increased stakeholder buy-in in the end product
- Increased engagement with end users and industry, improving the overall requirements and procurement process
- A high-level roadmap to accomplish the project

Use of Q&A sessions allow for more fruitful exchange of information with vendors.

Market Research
Interactive sessions could clarify questions themselves, highlight issues RFPs, uncover unrealistic requirements and disseminate information to industry quickly without risking the acquisition schedule. These sessions can be virtual webinars, in person, or over the phone after the release of the draft solicitation and prior to the submission of Q&As.
The traditional Q&A process, only done via email, provides answers to carefully crafted questions, as interpreted by the Government, this often leads to onerous follow-up questions, confusion, or both.
- Clear understanding of both questions and motivations
- Ability to ask follow-up questions quickly
- Rapid dissemination to industry without risking schedule
The government team meets individually with vendors.

Market Research
Market research must be conducted thoroughly to ensure the right strategies, industry participants, and process are established to conduct an efficient, robust competition. Prior to issuance of the solicitation, government officials - including the program manager, users, or contracting officer - should meet with potential offerors to exchange general information and conduct market research related to an acquisition. While meeting with potential offerors, there is no requirement that the meetings include all possible offerors, nor is there a prohibition on one-on-one meetings.
- Market research that is done purely with Requests for Information, or other purely written submissions may not result in enough information to thoroughly ensure all aspects of the requirements or evaluation strategy are well communicated with industry
- Increased understanding of the Government requirements
The industry presents its perspectives to the acquisition community.

Market Research
Industry presents its perspectives to the federal acquisition workforce.
- It is sometimes difficult to apply innovative procurement approaches to new requirements. Industry may be able to provide better procurement approaches, or at least their perspectives to the Government audiences
- Agencies gain a better understanding of how procurements, processes, or innovative techniques are approached by industry
- Potential improvements to the acquisition process
Solicitation Methods when building the solicitation for effective contract formation and administration.
Proposal and Evaluation process to enable the government to evaluate the value of Betterment solutions and incorporate them into the resulting award

Solicitation
Betterment is a process where vendors have the opportunity, in a dedicated space in their quote or proposal, to outline specific aspects of their proposed solution that exceed or enhance the government’s requirement and the value those aspects bring to the government. These Betterment promises are submitted as a stand-alone factor and are considered in the overall tradeoff analysis. These Betterment promises are captured and included in the awarded requirements document (award) replacing the former minimums of the original requirements document (solicitation). For example, an offeror proposes a definite promise of 600 actions per day with an explanation of the value impact it brings and how it is possible to exceed the government’s minimum document production of 400 actions per day.
- Allows vendors to propose an enhanced solution and the government to evaluate and incorporate it into the award document, if selected for award.
- Allows vendors a dedicated space in the proposal submissions to identify how their unique approaches exceed or enhance the government’s minimum requirement.
- With the Betterment technique, teams can include a separate evaluation factor to allow vendors a place to formally propose a solution that exceeds or enhances the government’s requirement in a meaningful way.
- Increase successful outcomes of the work performed under the contract.
Notice for scientific or research proposals which may lead to contracts.

Solicitation
A Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) (FAR 35.016) is a notice from the government that requests scientific or research proposals from private firms concerning certain areas of interest to the government. The proposals submitted by the private firms may lead to contracts.
- Acquisition of basic and applied research and that part of development not related to the development of a specific system or hardware procurement
- Allows for funding of state-of-the-art advances without a specific programmatic requirement in place
- Similar to a regular BAA, DHS"s Long-Range BAA covers a wide range of subjects and is short on details. This enables DHS to contemplate proposals for original research that fall outside the scope of its more narrowly defined BAAs
Call for demonstrations in response to realistic scenarios. Can use both FAR and Non-FAR authorities.

Solicitation
A Challenge-Based Acquisition (ChBA) presents a real-life challenge scenario inviting vendors to conduct technical demonstrations with the capability for the government to test or interact with the technology and select the challenge-proven solution with award to the best suited working prototype or functional automated solution. ChBA uses the Federal Acquisition Regulation or Other Transaction authorities and in both the pre-award and post-award phases.
- ChBA uses challenges to communicate the needed capability, encourage innovation in a minimally prescriptive environment, assess candidate offerings, and ultimately purchase solutions in quantity.
- ChBA is especially appropriate in situations where the Government"s need is urgent and time critical, where no traditional solution seems viable, or where emerging technologies have the potential to provide non-traditional solutions.
- Focus (encourages Government understanding of sought capability gaps)
- Innovation (communicates needs without constraining the solution space)
- Risk Management (understanding the range of solutions without a major commitment of resources)
- Verification (if you don"t see it, you don"t buy it, no more paper proposals only)
- Synergy (incentivizes industry participation and engages user community)
- Fairness (levels the playing field for small, innovative companies)
- Procurement (at the end, unlike prize competitions, you can buy the solution in quantity, not just the prototype)
- Innovative Contracting Case Studies (Refer to pages 13-14 and 79-83 in the report)
- Challenge-Based Acquisition Handbook 5th Edition
- Case Study: JIEDDO Counter-IED Culvert Challenge
- Case Study: Army Cyber Innovation Challenge Using OTA
- Case Study: USDA's Farmers.gov Portal Development
- Toolkit for Developing a Challenge/Demonstration
Technology development made easy

Solicitation
Reimagine use of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subparts 12.6 and 13.5, to procure technology development services using commercial procedures. Acquisitions are marked by brief and goal-oriented requirement documents, short proposal times, multiple awardees and contracts with short periods of performance (base and option periods). Option periods are used as performance phases, where only successfully demonstrated solutions are carried forward.
- Provides for government sponsored new development work without the need for Cost Reimbursable contracts and the challenges associated with traditional development programs.
- Maximizes flexibilities of traditional FAR procedures.
- Solicit commercial products and services without special authorities.
- Accelerates technology development for government-unique requirements
- Increases access to new entrants
- Accelerates time to award
- Decreases risk of incompatible technologies
- SMALL BUSINESS BENEFIT: Improves opportunities for small businesses to obtain Government contracts through manageable commercial-style processes that focus on helping offerors engage with potential government customers, minimize administrative requirements and maximize opportunities to demonstrate strengths
In-depth requirements review and familiarization for offerors prior to delivery of final proposals.

Solicitation
Government buyers often want prospective offerors to learn more about requirements before submission of full proposals. Discovery is like an in-depth site visit that allows interested sources to conduct due diligence. The government may provide a reading room and access to key requirement owners for direct exchanges with individual companies. In order to get the best possible proposals, the Discovery process takes the site visit concept and makes it more interactive, letting offerors ask specific questions. This is typically done after release of the final solicitation and before receipt of full proposals, possibly after phase 1 of a multi-phased procurement when the competitive pool has been reduced to only a few remaining offerors.
- Reduces the often overwhelming advantage of incumbency.
- Incumbents typically have greater access and insight to close-at-hand information, such as the background of the mission, the environment, or the underlying government need.
- Awardee transition and ramp-up times are reduced due to better understanding of the work.
- Builds supplier diversity and resiliency by creating a more manageable playing field for competition
- A thorough understanding of the requirement results in more competitive and customer-responsive offerors from industry.
- Offerors can ask questions of the 'as is' landscape to better understand the scope and to better shape their final phase proposal submission.
- The government receives improved performance due to a better alignment of requirements and the selected offer.
- SMALL BUSINESS BENEFIT: Allows new entrant small businesses to gain insight and a level of understanding about the requirement that would otherwise not be available
Flexibilty to award the appropriate contract type at award with the possibility to convert the contract type during performance.

Solicitation
This technique allows procurement teams to build flexibility into the solicitation to allow for future conversion from one contract type to another, such as from time-and-materials to firm-fixed-price, after award.
Consider this text in your next solicitation: "As appropriate, after award, Labor Hour/Time & Material (T&M) contract line item numbers (CLINs) may be converted to Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs through mutual agreement of both parties, based on the rates (and labor categories) negotiated at the time of award."
Possible clause to reference: FAR 52.212-4(c), Contract Terms and Conditions – Commercial Items, Changes (Oct 2018)
- Allows procurement teams to award the most appropriate type of contract, at time of award, but convert to a more appropriate, less risky, type after enough historical performance data is known.
- Improves collaboration between the contracting office, program office, and the contractor. As appropriate, after award, CLINs may be converted through mutual agreement of both parties.
- Provides the flexibility to include optional CLINs for support that cannot be accurately priced before work commences. For example – an optional T&M CLIN can be converted to FFP when appropriate, such as when the work is more defined after performance or when funding becomes available.
- Allows flexibility when the program office is faced with budget constraints, such as in continuing resolutions. The team can convert CLINs to firm-fixed price when appropriate.
- Contract type can be converted during the life of the contract instead of waiting until the next competition.
- Allows for additional flexibility under hybrid-type contracts.
- Increase successful outcomes of the work being performed under the selected contract type. The government and contractor teams can build upon previous work and/or once knowns are more determined, finalizing pricing, within scope and within the awarded price estimation.
- Procurement teams can test a new contract type environment within scope during award.
- Allows the team to be more flexible in meeting the mission during continuing resolutions.
Technique to reduce the number of procurements and streamline the process by incorporating requirements into a single solicitation.

Solicitation
This technique fuses or brings together multiple requirements into a single solicitation from what would normally be multiple separate solicitations for each specific requirement. The varying requirements could be the same, similar, or completely different documents combined into the single solicitation. Prior to issuing the solicitation, the acquisition team would determine the evaluation strategy for each requirement outlined. The team can use the same or different evaluation approach to evaluate responses to the solicitation for each requirement, as established in the single solicitation. After evaluations are complete, the contracting officer issues separate awards for each requirement to the respective successful offeror. The Fusion Procurements technique does not refer to the process of issuing a single solicitation for a multiple award contract or agreement.
- The government can streamline the review process by submitting one solicitation package for review rather than multiple solicitation packages. This enables only needing one solicitation or acquisition strategy to be reviewed by legal advisors, solicitation review boards, or other reviewers such as source selection teams rather than multiple reviews.
- If teams keep the evaluation process the same for the multiple requirements, then all parties (government and industry) can get through the evaluation process more efficiently.
- Streamlines the review and approval processes for government teams.
- Provides teams a method to issue solicitations concurrently rather than separately.
- Streamlines the evaluation process for government and vendors when using the same evaluation criteria for each anticipated award on the solicitation.
- Streamlines buying for same or similar requirements.
- Supports portfolio management, regardless of scope, across programs or agency requirements.
- SMALL BUSINESS BENEFIT: Includes multiple requirements into one solicitation, thus reducing the probability of missing a requirement issued by the government and increasing strategic participation in the acquisition by the small business community.
The Highest Technically Rated Offeror with Reasonable Price (HTRO-RP) flips the script on what to prioritize when expediting selection decisions.

Solicitation
This practice allows award to the highest technically rated offer that is also found to have a reasonable price without using trade-offs between cost or price and technical. This practice ranks or rates offerors according to technical factors following either the Self Scoring Model or a government technical evaluation. Price evaluation of only the highest ranked or rated offer proceeds next. Price reasonableness can be determined through various techniques such as benchmarking or statistical analysis (within one standard deviation of offeror distribution, for example). If the offeror’s price is not determined to be fair and reasonable, the offer is rejected and the next highest ranked or rated offer is evaluated until award can be made to the highest ranked or rated offeror with a fair and reasonable price.
Agencies have successfully used this technique in FAR 15 and FAR 16.5 procurements. Not recommended for acquisitions where cost is a significant consideration. Also not recommended for FAR Part 8 actions because of statutory and regulatory requirement that best value determinations result in the lowest overall cost alternative (considering price, special features, administrative costs, etc.).
- Promotes efficiency in acquisition through a streamlined selection decision, especially for knowledge based services where technical ability is of paramount concern to the point that cost is not used as a comparative discriminator among offerors.
- Allows technical capability to be prioritized over price and/or cost without requiring explicit trade-offs between technical and cost that are not likely to change the outcome.
- Ensures proposed pricing is more accurately associated with proposed quality of work.
- Simplifies the best value determination; provides a streamlined means to make award to the highest technically rated offeror.
- Accelerates time to award. An agency reported an award time of 79 days after release of the solicitation compared to 268 days for a comparable procurement.
Break large contracts into several shorter-term, lower dollar procurements.

Solicitation
Modular procurement is a procurement model that breaks what would traditionally be a large, monolithic contract into several shorter-term, lower dollar amount contracts. When combined with human-centered and agile practices, it can mean allowing those who use your services to use portions of the new software faster.
- As the government needs to more closely monitor the performance of smaller contracts they can help remedy problems to avoid cost overlays and drawn out schedules. In contrast, the vast majority of larger projects are overbudget or failing
- Modular procurement makes it easier to manage software development by segmenting risk
- This acquisition strategy permits isolated failure in one unit of many units, rather than letting it impact the entire project
- Because each project is smaller, they are easier to comprehend and manage, making problems and risks smaller so you can recognize and resolve them more easily
- SMALL BUSINESS BENEFIT: Smaller contracts provide small businesses more manageable opportunities better aligned with their capabilities
Addition and removal of contractors on multiple-award contracts.

Solicitation
This process allows for the Government to: remove non-performing contractors, add new contractors during "open seasons", etc. Too often multiple-award IDIQs or BPAs have contractors that are either not competing for work or require more competition in out years. Here the Government has the flexibility to address issues of performance and competition after the IDIQ or BPA has been award, not just prior to award.
- With long periods of performance, a multiple-award contract (MAC) may become less useful over time, reducing access to innovative, best-suited vendors who actively participate in the procurement process.
- Maintains access to the best solutions
- Incentivizes vendors to engage in the procurement process
- SMALL BUSINESS BENEFIT: Gives small business offerors more opportunities to enter an agency’s supplier base by gaining a spot on the contract vehicle after initial competition and award rather than being ‘locked out’ of the market as a prime contractor for a number of years

Solicitation
The Rates Only for Pricing Evaluations (ROPE) methodology alleviates the burden on vendors submitting complex pricing submissions and on contracting officers when evaluating these submissions as part of establishing an indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract or blanket purchase agreement (BPA).
Prior to the issuance of the solicitation, the Government creates a realistic estimated number of hours or a scenario of the labor categories or CLINs to evaluate pricing. In contrast to typical practice, the Government does not share the number of hours with the vendors. Instead, the Government asks vendors to submit only the rates, for the price submission factor, of the requested labor categories for the parent award, using the same scenario or estimate for all price evaluations. The submitted rates by the vendors are evaluated by the Government and inputted into the estimated hours or scenario to come up with the total evaluated price for each vendor. The total evaluated price is used for evaluation purposes only. All proposed labor categories and rates are incorporated into the final award. The scenario and results are shared with vendors as a part of their debriefing or when being given a brief explanation of the award decision.
ROPE is recommended for use when using a best-value tradeoff to award single-award IDIQs and BPAs and may be used in a multiple-award environment. ROPE is highly recommended for labor hour or time-and-materials type IDIQs or BPAs and may be used for other contract types. This technique should not be used for the award of orders against an existing IDIQ or BPA.
Consider this text in your next solicitation:
“To help select the best value Quoter for this BPA [or IDIQ] opportunity, the Government will use the hourly rates from the BPA [or IDIQ] LCAT Pricing Rate Worksheet/Excel Spreadsheet. The Government will apply those rates to an estimated number of hours for each labor category to arrive at a total evaluated price. Quoters shall submit the attached pricing worksheet.”
OR
“All vendors must complete the LCAT Pricing Rate Worksheet by completing all cells not already filled-in by the Government. The Government will then apply those rates to a sample task order scenario to arrive at a total evaluated price to use in the best-value tradeoff analysis. The estimate [or ceiling] provided in the solicitation may assist in coming up with discounted rates for the base period and all option periods. The Government will not disclose this sample task order scenario with vendors.”
- Streamlines the submission of pricing for vendors.
- Enables contracting officers to perform a more efficient evaluation of vendor price submissions.
- Reduces the gamesmanship in pricing submissions.
- Streamlines the solicitation, evaluation, and award process. Eliminates the need for a full “sample task order” and instead focuses only on the realistic scenario pricing.
- Reduces the burden for the government during price evaluation and streamlines time to award. The government evaluates the rates and discounts submitted for the life of the parent vehicle and applies the vendor rates to the estimated hours or scenario.
- SMALL BUSINESS BENEFIT: Streamlines and reduces the complexity of the vendor’s price proposal submission.
- Guide: DHS PIL Innovation Technique 16 (Rates Only Pricing), The Next Level Workbook
- Solicitation: DHS CBP Investment Analysis Office RFQ (FAR 8.4)
- Sample Price Sheet: DHS CBP Investment Analysis Office Price Sheet
- GAO Decision: DCSA Rates Only Pricing
- Sample: DCSA Instructions to Offerors
- Sample: DCSA Evaluation Process
- Sample: DCSA Price Workbook
- Sample: USDA Technique Example
- Sample Price Sheet: USDA Pricing Matrix
- Sample Evaluation: USDA Pricing Evaluation Worksheet (5 Scenarios)

New or existing technology is leveraged to facilitate all phases of the acquisition lifecycle.

Solicitation
Agencies conduct mission essential acquisition activities virtually and remotely, leveraging new or existing technology and tools. Virtual and other remote acquisition activities include i) online industry conferences, ii) phone interviews, iii) virtual site visits and inspections, iv) video proposals, and v) virtual oral presentations and consensus evaluations.
- Innovative virtual and remote activities with online tools and telephone devices can be highly beneficial when in person activities are not practical or possible, with emergency acquisitions (FAR Part 18) or when stakeholders are geographically dispersed.
- In the face of a pandemic, such as COVID-19, remote acquisitions represent not just more efficient practices, but a necessary mechanism to prevent unnecessary disruptions to soliciting new work and enabling continued contract awards in support of pressing mission requirements in a manner that is consistent with the HHS Centers for Disease Control"s guidance and shelter-in-place orders.
- Alternative authorities, such as challenges and prize competitions and commercial solutions opening pilots, combined with virtual and other remote activities may help with ideation processes to solve urgent mission needs.
- Accelerates time to award.
- Reduces administrative burden.
- Reduces barriers to entry.
- Enables more effective decision-making.
- Enables procurements to continue where they might otherwise be stopped, such as to comply with social distancing guidance for public health safety.
- SMALL BUSINESS BENEFIT: Allows new entrants, recent entrants, and small businesses to participate in federal contracting opportunities who might not be able to otherwise on equal footing as to established contractors.
- Solicitation: DHS FEMA Video Proposal for Software Design and O&M
- Solicitation: DHS FEMA Video Proposal for Technology Prototype
- Solicitation: DHS CBP Phone Interview for Services
- Solicitation & Case Study: VA TAC Virtual Technical Demonstration for Coding Artifacts
- Solicitation & Case Study: VA TAC Virtual Technical Demonstration for Mobile Application
- Solicitation: VA TAC Virtual Post Award Kick Off
- Workforce Guide: USAID Tips for Virtual Requirements Development
- Website: US Army Challenge for COVID-19 Ventilators
- Commercial Solutions Opening: DHS Teleconference or Videoconference
Industry evaluates themselves and provides documentation to the government for validation.

Solicitation
Self-certification, or a self-scoring system, puts the burden of proving the contractor's capabilities on them instead of the Government. Bidders score themselves on one or more factors and provide documentation to support their assertions.
- Awarding large multiple-award IDIQs or BPAs is an arduous process. Many vendors may submit proposals while few are actually qualified. It falls to the contracting officer to separate them
- Incentivizes non-qualified bidders to avoid submitting a proposal
- Reduces administrative workload in verifying credentials
- Creates a true "apples-to-apples" comparison among bidders
Evaluation Techniques for identifying the best possible solution from industry while making the evaluation process more effective.
No ratings assigned! Evaluators compare one offeror to another throughout the evaluation.

Evaluation
No ratings are assigned! The evaluators compare one offeror to another, factor by factor and then overall at the end. Ideal for task/delivery orders under FAR subpart 8.4 and 16.505, but also for part 13 simplified acquisitions (incl. subpart 13.5 for commercial items up to $7 Million). Not recommended for use under FAR part 15.
- We don"t get hung up on assigning and defending adjectival ratings
- Recommended text for solicitation: The Government may perform a comparative evaluation (comparing offers to each other) to select the contractor that is best suited and provides the best value, considering the evaluation factors in this solicitation
- Allows the source selection authority leeway in determining the method of evaluation
- Puts the needs of the government above simple FAR part 15 procedure
- This technique can be very powerful and very fast
Evaluators assign holistic ratings rather than strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or risks.

Evaluation
Confidence ratings are another form of adjectival rating that allow evaluators to assign ratings more holistically. May be used in acquisitions under FAR subparts 8.4 (orders/BPAs under schedules), 15.3 (source selections), and 16.505 (orders under multiple-award IDIQ contracts); as well as Part13 (Simplified Acquisitions). Only source selections under Subpart 15.3 require documentation of relative strengths, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and risks; other acquisitions may use different approaches.
- Adjectival ratings that limit evaluators to a certain rating based on having a certain number of "strengths" or "weaknesses" are not flexible, and overly restrict the evaluators" ability to assign appropriate ratings. They also cause far too much controversy and re-work in our internal review processes
- Confidence ratings provide evaluators the ability to look more holistically at the strongpoints and weak points of an offer
- Confidence ratings, supported by rationale, are often more helpful to a selecting official
- SMALL BUSINESS BENEFIT: Evaluates offers holistically to capture raters’ overall confidence in the offeror’s likelihood to succeed, helping small businesses who may be stronger overall than some more seasoned larger businesses
Use multiple phases with smaller numbers of companies proceeding to the next phase.

Evaluation
The solicitation is bifurcated into multiple phases (usually two), with a down-select in between the phases. The down-select can be firm or advisory, there are benefits to each. The goal is to make Phase 1 light, while saving the heavy technical submission and price to Phase 2 with a smaller number of offerors.
- The offeror gets quick feedback on a light but meaningful Phase 1 Factor which can help inform their decision to move forward with a Phase 2 submission based on the instruction or recommendation from the Government
- The Government does not get as overwhelmed with bulky proposal submissions, resulting in a streamlined process and cleaner documentation at the very end
- More streamlined evaluations
- Reduced bid and proposal costs
- Cleaner/reduced documentation for the Government in evaluations
- Quicker feedback to offerors to help them make timely decisions with their bid and proposal costs
- SMALL BUSINESS BENEFIT: Earlier feedback to offerors reduces bid and proposal costs for small businesses so they can focus their resources more effectively on acquisitions where they have the greatest likelihood of succeeding
- DHS USCG AUXDATA BPA RFQ
- Down Select Letter_Sample Out
- Down Select Letter_Sample In
- DHS S&T Portal RFQ
- DHS FEMA NFIP TORP
- DHS CBP DCSS RFP
- VA Veterans Platform RFQ
- DHS PIL Boot Camp Workbook Innovation Technique #4
- Pilot IRS Solicitation
- DHS PIL Technique 4 (training video)
- USPTO Request for Quote
- Department of Education’s Advisory Down-Select, G5 RFQ and Instructions to Offerors (pg. 21-38)
Hear directly from vendors and their technical experts.

Evaluation
Oral presentations (see FAR 15.102) allow the Government to hear directly from the vendor and their technical experts about their solutions and create a dialogue.
- Vendors get to showcase their true capabilities while not having to write onerous written proposals. Evaluators get to ask questions to the vendors technical experts and key personal while also engaging in interactive dialogue to truly understand the proposed solution. Evaluators also save time in evaluations by not having to read lengthy written proposals
- Get information directly from vendor"s technical experts
- Allows Government and vendor to ask and answer questions
- Reduce the use of paper proposals where possible
- May reduce bid and proposal costs
- Streamlines the Government"s evaluation process and timeline
- SMALL BUSINESS BENEFIT: Allows small business teams to showcase their technical expertise, even engaging in a dialogue with Government evaluators, while avoiding the cost of having to submit a lengthy written technical proposal
Buyers can see, feel and test solutions before buying.

Evaluation
Product or technical demonstrations let buyers see, feel, and test solutions before buying. True capabilities can be revealed. Can be a stand-alone factor or an element of the oral presentation.
- Seeing the solution in action provides more verifiable information than reading about it on paper. Vendors can more easily showcase their solutions
- Can streamline the selection process, lower bid and proposal costs, etc.
- Testing or inspection can be included as an independent evaluation factor
- Allows end-users to be part of the demonstration for useful feedback in the evaluation process
- SMALL BUSINESS BENEFIT: Allows small business to showcase their product, system, or team directly with the Government evaluators rather than writing lengthy written technical proposals about it
Award Identifying the best industry solution given the evaluation criteria while shortening the time to award.
A concise award decision document focuses on the material elements of the award decision rather than an exhaustive history or duplication of other documents.

Award
Nowhere does the FAR require that a tradeoff analysis or decision document be exhaustive or be a certain prescribed length or page count. Lets focus on the actual decision to be made instead of incorporating an exhaustive history of other documents again into the decision document or duplicating findings that may be merely be referenced by the selection official.
- Selection documents that are too long are problematic in several ways
- They take too long to write
- They take too long in the review process
- They have to be re-written too many times
- They contain inconsistencies that cause problems later, such as in reviews or in protests
- They distract from the real assignment of writing a concise decision document
- Is easier for the drafter to write, easier for the selecting official to read and understand, and easier for reviewers to review
- May be re-written fewer times
- Focuses on what is really important (the selection decision)
- May be easier to defend in a protest.
Immediate consensus evaluation in conjunction with oral presentations or a reading of the proposal.

Award
The evaluation team reads the proposal (or attends the oral presentation) and then, as a group, evaluates the proposal and immediately documents the evaluation decision in real time before starting the evaluation of the next proposal.
- Individual evaluation reports, prior to consensus, can unnecessarily delay the evaluation timeline and increase the risk of including individual findings, not intended to be supported by the consensus team, in the consensus evaluation report
- Keeps documentation clear to support the decision and not deliberations
- SMALL BUSINESS BENEFIT: Reduced evaluation time puts less burden on small businesses waiting for award results
- Phase 1 Experience OTS Consensus Worksheet - SOME
- Phase 1 Experience OTS Consensus Worksheet - LOW
- Phase 1 Experience OTS Consensus Worksheet - HIGH
- DHS USCIS JETS Factor 4 TEC report samples
- DHS PIL Boot Camp Workbook Worksheet Sample - Pg 26
- DHS PIL Innovation Techniques #7
- DHS PIL Technique 7 (training video)
An effective way to inform unsuccessful offerors of the award decision rationale.

Award
Contracting officers may hold misconceptions about the effectiveness and outcomes of in-person oral debriefings. When done properly, the oral debriefing to inform offerors of why an award decision was made can be an extremely effective tool.
- Clarity and trust in the award process
- Government can instill confidence in the acquisition decision and communicate adherence to its contracting process
- Offerors are motivated to better understand the process while gaining additional insight to improve future proposals
- Contracting Officers and Program Managers can apply a successful approach through dry runs in a learning environment which brings positive reinforcement
- Reduced protests
- SMALL BUSINESS BENEFIT: More clarity and understanding of the award decision helps small businesses compete more effectively for future work
Interjecting negotiations with the prospective awardee following selection, yet prior to award.

Award
Once the Government has completed its entire evaluation in accordance with the process established in the solicitation, and has conducted its tradeoff analysis, the Government selects the apparently successful offeror/quoter. The Government then can communicate solely with that offeror/quoter to negotiate any remaining terms ((technical and price) and finalize an award. Ideal for task/delivery orders under FAR subpart 8.4 and 16.505, but also for part 13 simplified acquisitions (incl. subpart 13.5 for commercial items up to $7 Million). Not recommended for use under FAR part 15.
- Too often the Government makes an award still with questions on an offeror"s technical or price submission but is afraid of negotiating with just that offeror. In the same light, Offeror"s receive an award and go to the kickoff meeting with assumptions, etc., not yet clarified by the Government
- Better understanding and expectations from the Government and Offeror after award
- SMALL BUSINESS BENEFIT: Pre-award negotiations help ensure alignment between the government and small businesses thereby reducing costly inefficiencies and avoiding suboptimal award decisions
- Video: DHS PIL Technique 6 (training video)
- DHS PIL Innovation Techniques #6
- Workforce Guide: DHS Award Decision Document Redacted
- Workforce Guide: Award Decision Document Redacted
- Solicitation: DHS S&T Request for Quote
- Solicitation: DHS OPO HART Request for Proposal (RFP) pg. 156
- Solicitation: DHS USCG ISD Fair Opportunity Notice (FON), pg. 17
- DHS USCG ISD Documentation
- Solicitation: VA VA.gov Request for Quote (RFQ) pg. 53
- GAO Decision: B-415514 (DHS OPO HART)
- GAO Decision: DHS USCG ISD
- GAO Decision: Treasury BFS TTB
- GAO Decision: Department of Justice, BPA under GSA Federal Supply Schedule
Post Award Improving communication with offerors following contract award and improving better contractor performance.
Motivate contractors with additional periods of performance.

Post Award
Agencies use additional periods of performance, known as award term incentives, to motivate vendors to deliver better performance, usually in service contracts with objective performance measures. Award Terms may be awarded using standardized scoring methodologies in performance evaluations and are most impactful when care is taken to guard against grade-inflation, relaxed rating standards and over reliance on subjective performance measures. When used, award terms should be administered separate and distinct from traditional option periods and award fees.
- This practice encourages superior, contractor performance in excess of minimum requirements -- beyond what may typically be incentivized through the exercise of an option. Provides additional means of incentivizing performance on challenging programs or programs involving a heavy investment of capital. Reduces the administrative burden on high-performing contractors in securing additional work while allowing them to build a stronger track record for future competitions.
- Agencies and vendors alike suggest award term incentives may be more motivating than traditional fees
- Motivates higher levels of performance
- Fosters contractor capital investment
- Increases the desirability of the award, thus potentially increasing competition
- Can both reward superior performance and save the agency time and money by spreading out the cycle for re-competition
- Policy: Department of Energy
- Appraisal Process: Department of Energy
- Awards: Department of Energy
- Template: US Digital Service draft RFQ (SalesForce BPA Call, see section 5 on p.3)
- FAR Supplement: NASA
- Statute: Department of Education Acquisition Regulation
- Reference Document: Department of Energy Overview of Award Term
Release of the government award rationale facilitates and enhances the debriefing process.

Post Award
Release of the selection decision document following contract award. This occurs after proprietary and procurement sensitive information are redacted from the document. Release could also be made of the tradeoff analysis alone or of the consensus evaluation reports only. Release of the information can be made directly to the offerors involved in the procurement or more broadly on the agency’s public website. This practice can occur as part of the debriefing process or following closure of the protest period. There are no regulatory prohibitions against this type of sharing after award.
- Eliminates or reduces guesswork as to the technical merit and trade-offs decisions made by the government in a competition.
- Increases transparency between industry and government
- Can reduce an unsuccessful offeror’s inclination to protest solely out of a need for more information that the government has readily available
- Ensures the government is mindful about the documentation it produces
- Encourages the government to keep documentation reasonable, concise, and brief.
- SMALL BUSINESS BENEFIT: More clarity and understanding of the award decision, or the technical evaluation reports, helps small businesses compete more effectively for future work
Market Research Tools to support collecting information in order to understand the marketplace and assess the availability of sources.
Robotic process automation (RPA) bots designed for collecting basic market research information from various government and public access websites.

Market Research
Conducting market research is the basis for planning and developing a successful acquisition. It is the process of gathering and analyzing information about a market, product, or service to be offered for sale to fulfill the Government's needs.
As required in FAR Section 10.001, agencies must conduct market research and use the results to determine if sources capable of satisfying the agency’s requirements exist.
- Collecting basic market research information from various government and public access websites.
- Improved accuracy
- Increased compliance
- Reduced labor time spent on manual tasks
- Reduced process/cycle time
- Deployed Department-wide
- Overview: DOL Market Research Bot
- Supplemental Info: Market Research Bot User Guide
- Deployed Agency-wide
- **NEW**Overview: NSF Market Research Bot**NEW**
- **NEW**Supplemental Info: Market Research Bot Instructions**NEW**
- **NEW**Supplemental Info: Market Research Bot Example Response**NEW**
- Overview: VA Market Research Assistant
Robotic process automation (RPA) bot designed to identify potentially relevant small business vendors for various procurement and contracting actions.
Market Research
The Dynamic Small Business Search (DSBS) is a public system run by the Small Business Administration (SBA), that collects and displays Small Business Profiles registered in SAM.Gov (System for Award Management).
When conducting market research agencies, often use the DSBS to search for small businesses to help determine the extent that small businesses may be able to support the procurement action, including whether the procurement should be set aside for participation by the small business community.
- Identifying potentially relevant small business vendors for various procurement and contracting actions
- Improved accuracy
- Increased compliance
- Reduced labor time spent on manual tasks
- Reduced process/cycle time
Artificial intelligence (AI) tool for uncovering historical acquisition information in order to understand the marketplace and previous prices paid.
Market Research
When conducting market research, reviewing historical acquisition information obtained from previous procurements can be a practical method to help understand the marketplace and assess the availability of sources. As described in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Section 10.002, a thorough review of acquisition histories on current or prior contracts for the same or similar items can help determine the type of market information needed for a particular acquisition.
- Support for uncovering historical acquisition information in order to understand the marketplace and previous prices paid
- Reduced labor time spent on manual tasks
- Reduced process/cycle time
Technology solution for identifying potentially relevant vendors for various procurement and contracting actions in support of equity goals (e.g. small business, 8(a), SDB, HUBZone, SDVOSB, WOSB).
Market Research
As required in FAR Section 10.001, agencies must conduct market research and use the results to determine if sources capable of satisfying the agency’s requirements exist. In addition, government-wide priorities outlined in the OMB memorandum M-22-03 Advancing Equity in Federal Procurement, expect agencies to make Federal contracting and procurement opportunities more readily available to all eligible vendors and to increase baseline spending for socioeconomic small businesses and traditionally underserved entrepreneurs recognized in the Small Business Act.
- Identifying potentially relevant vendors for various procurement and contracting actions in support of equity goals (e.g. small business, 8(a), SDB, HUBZone, SDVOSB, WOSB)
- Improved accuracy
- Increased compliance
- Reduced labor time spent on manual tasks
- Reduced process/cycle time
Solicitation Tools to support preparing the solicitation package, effective communication with offerors, and receiving bids.
Quickly speed up the review of clauses selected for inclusion in solicitations and contracts

Solicitation
Part 52 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) contains the standard provisions and clauses to be included, or incorporated by reference, in solicitations or contracts. Part 52 also prescribes procedures for incorporating, identifying, and modifying provisions and clauses in solicitations and contracts, and for using alternates. In addition to considering the aforementioned factors when developing contracts and solicitations, contracting officers must also consider unique prescriptions, prefaces, and identification numbers for each provision and clause as well as the product or service being acquired, the type of contract, the acquisition procedures being used. The logic for selecting clauses and provisions for solicitations or contracts can be time consuming and complex.
- Initiate and execute steps to assist Contracting Officers in selecting appropriate provisions and clauses for solicitations and contracts
- Reduced labor time spent on repetitive tasks
- Reduced process/cycle time
- Increased compliance
- Improved accuracy
Web app for initiating and executing steps involved in estimating PALT.
Solicitation
Effective acquisition planning involves determining the milestones and lead times necessary to complete the acquisition in a timely manner. An estimate of the total procurement administrative lead time (PALT) for a procurement action is normally measured in days and often varies based on acquisition size, complexity, and contract type.
- Initiate and execute steps involved in estimating PALT
- Labor hours saved in estimating PALT
- Improved accuracy of estimated PALTs
- Shortened lead time of awards
Award Tools to support preparing contract award documentation, including business clearances.
Robotic process automation (RPA) bot designed for initiating and executing steps in USAID’s NegMemo process.
Award
The objective of the NegMemo process is to document and record key elements of an acquisition award decision.
- Initiate and execute steps in the NegMemo process
- Reduced processing time
- Improved accuracy
- Improved process efficiency
- Improved customer service
- Eliminates repetitive work
- Planned Project & Partnering Opportunity
- Overview: USAID NegMemo Process Automation
- Supplemental Info: NegMemo Process Definition Document (PDD)
- Supplemental Info: NegMemo Solution Design Document (SDD)
Robotic process automation (RPA) bots to initiate and execute steps to assist Contracting Officers in making determinations of contractor responsibility.

Award
Contracting Officers are responsible for ensuring that contract awards are made only to responsible prospective contractors. To determine prospective contractors’ responsibility, Contracting Officers consider information in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and other past performance information submitted by the contractor or otherwise acquired by the agency. FAR Subpart 9.1 Contactor Qualifications prescribes the policies, standards, and procedures pertaining to determinations of prospective contractors’ responsibility and requires Contracting Officers to document each contract file to indicate how the information in FAPIIS was considered as well as any action that was taken as a result of the information.
- Initiate and execute steps to assist Contracting Officers in making determinations of contractor responsibility
- Reduced labor time spent on manual tasks
- Reduced process/cycle time
- Increased compliance, especially with file documentation requirements
- Increased audit readiness
- Automation code is scalable and documentation can be shared with other federal departments and agencies
- Overview: Army Determination of Responsibility Assistant (DORA) Bot
- Supplemental Info: DORA Info Flyer
- Overview: DOE Commercial Office the Shelf (COTS) Contractor Responsibility Bot
- Supplemental Info: DOE Limited Sources Justification
- Overview: DOL Contractor Responsibility Bot
- Supplemental Info: DOL Contractor Responsibility Determination User Guide
- Deployed Bureau-wide
- Overview: NIST Responsibility & Market Research Bot
- Supplemental Info: Attachment I – NIST BOT Overview and Instructions
- Supplemental Info: Attachment II – NIST Sample Request
- Supplemental Info: Attachment III – NIST Sample Output
- Supplemental Info: Attachment IV – NIST Process Design Document
- Deployed Department-Wide
- **NEW**Overview USDA Contractor Responsibility Assessment Tool**NEW**
- **NEW**Supplemental Info: Statement of Work/Need**NEW**
An automation utilizing mapping technology to facilitate shopping cart processing for IRS procurements.
Award
Spreadsheet uploader technology maps data from one system and imports it into a spreadsheet.
- Facilitates shopping cart processing for procurements
- Improved accuracy
- Increased compliance
- Reduced labor time spent on manual tasks
- Reduced process/cycle time
Post Award Improving contract administration, communication with offerors following contract award, and tools to support better contractor performance.
Acquisition automations to initiate and execute steps in the contract closeout process.

Post Award
Contract closeout is required for all government contracts to establish the final contract price and make the final contract payment. The process starts when contract performance is complete for a contract and ends when all administrative actions have been completed, all disputes settled, and final payment has been made. FAR 4.804, Closeout of Contract Files, provides the basic rules and procedures for the administrative closeout of contracts. The process can range from simple to complex depending on contract attributes such as type (e.g. firm-fixed price, cost-reimbursement), period of performance, significance, and type of subcontracted work, and the volume of property. For a complete list of steps in the contract closeout process, see Activity 51 in FAI’s Contracting Professionals Smart Guide.
- Initiate and execute steps in the contract closeout process
- Reduced labor time spent on manual tasks
- Reduced process/cycle time for closeout activities
- Increased compliance with required timeframes for closeout activities
- Reduced risk of overpayment
- Mitigates risks of losing funds to excess payments
- Exportable Code
- Overview: DLA Automated Contract Closeout
- Supplemental Info: DLA RPA Opportunity Basic Template - Questionnaire V4.1
- Deployed Department-wide
- Overview: DOI Contract Closeout Bot
- **NEW** Overview: GSA Closeout Automated Robotic Assistant CLARA **NEW**
- **NEW** Supplemental Info: GSA CLARA Information Sheet**NEW**
- **NEW** Supplemental: GSA CLARA Process Map**NEW**
- Deployed Bureau-wide
- Overview: HHS Contract Closeout Initiation
Tech-Savvy tools to prompt timely contract-required report submissions by contractors

Post Award
Contracting officers are responsible for ensuring that contract requirements are being met. Contract requirements often include various reports that must be submitted to the government by contractors within timeframes or by certain dates specified in law or regulation.
Contractor reporting requirements can be numerous and varied and must be managed by both the government and the contractor.
- Initiate and execute steps to send contractor reporting reminders and alerts
- Reduced labor time spent on manual tasks
- Reduced process/cycle time
- Reduced risk
- Increased compliance and audit readiness
- Overview: GSA’s Notifications or Reminders Automation (NORA) Bot
- Supplemental Information: NORA Fact Sheet
- Supplemental Information: Summary of NORA’s Notifications and Reminders
- Supplemental Information: Biobased Products Reporting Summary and Email Template
- Supplemental Information: Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) Reporting Summary and Email Temp
- Supplemental Information: Service Contract Inventory (SCI) Reporting Summary and Email Template
- Supplemental Information: eSRS Reporting Summary and Email Template
- Supplemental Information: FSRS Reporting Summary and Email Template
- Supplemental Information: Proof of Insurance Summary and Email Template
- Supplemental Information: VETS 4212 Reporting Summary and Email Template
- Supplemental Information: Bot Reminders & Notifications Business Rules
Acquisition automation to initiate and execute steps to de-obligate excess contract funds.
Post Award
De-obligations allow for the downward adjustment of previously incurred obligations. De-obligations may be appropriate when closing out contracts, terminating contracts, or during the performance of a contract as a result of a contract funds review that determines excess funds are available.
- Initiate and execute steps in the process to de-obligate excess contract funds
- Reduced labor time spent on manual tasks
- Reduced process/cycle time
- Increased compliance and audit readiness
- Reduced risk of overpayment
- Mitigates risks of losing funds to excess payments
Robotic process automation (RPA) bot designed to initiate and execute steps in the process of providing written notice of intent to exercise contract options.
Post Award
The preparation of a Letter of Intent is part of the process for exercising a contract option. As covered in FAR 17.207 Exercise of options, the process of executing an option begins with determining that there is an existing need that can be fulfilled by exercising the option in the contract and providing written notice to the contractor of the government’s intent to exercise the option. FAR 17.207(a) requires the contracting officer to provide written notice within the time period specified in the contract.
For a complete list of steps involved in exercising options, see Activity 34 in FAI’s Contracting Professionals Smart Guide.
- Initiate and execute steps in the process of providing written notice of intent to exercise contract options
- Increased compliance
- Reduced risks (and potential for increased costs)
- Improved accuracy
Acquisition automation(s) to initiate and execute steps in the process to create and issue multiple uniform modifications that impact a large number of contract actions.
Post Award
Contract modifications are needed when addressing contractor changes in the terms, price, and scope of the contract.
Automated mass modifications may be advantageous when there is a uniform change that impacts a large number of contract actions.
- Initiate and execute steps in the process to create and issue mass modifications
- Reduced labor time spent on manual tasks
- Reduced process/cycle time
- Increased compliance and audit readiness
FAI.GOV
An official website of the General Services Administration