RFP Module 3 cheat sheet

RFP (Request for Proposal) is a solicitation document that states requirements and invites vendors to submit a proposed solution, price, and approach; it is used when the buyer cannot fully specify the solution in advance.

Solicitation ladder by specification certainty: RFI (information gathering, no award) → RFQ (price-focused, well-defined goods) → RFP (solution and approach matter) → RFB/IFB (lowest responsive bid, fully specified).

An RFI creates no obligation to award and is not a binding procurement; responses cannot be used to disqualify a vendor from a later RFP.

Four core RFP sections: administrative/instructions, statement of work or requirements, evaluation criteria and weights, and contractual terms and conditions.

Evaluation weights must sum to 100% and be published in the RFP; undisclosed or altered criteria after release create protest exposure.

Typical RFP lifecycle: needs definition → market research → draft and review → release → questions and addenda → proposal receipt → evaluation → clarification/B AF → award and debrief.

Addenda are the only legitimate channel for changing RFP requirements; verbal answers and informal emails do not modify the solicitation.

Bid protest grounds usually center on: criteria not disclosed, unequal treatment, conflicts of interest, or evaluation contrary to stated criteria.

A requirement is testable when it names the actor, the action, the object, and a measurable threshold (e.g., 'system shall return search results in ≤2 seconds for 95% of queries').

Distinguish mandatory ('shall') from desirable ('should'/'may') requirements; only mandatory requirements may be used as pass/fail gates.

Functional requirements describe what the system must do; non-functional requirements cover performance, security, availability, usability, and compliance.

Scope creep control: every requirement gets a unique ID, so proposals, demos, and acceptance tests can be traced back to it.

Statement of Work must state deliverables, acceptance criteria, period of performance, place of performance, and government/customer-furnished items.

Avoid embedded design in requirements ('vendor shall use a three-tier architecture') unless the technology is mandated by policy or interoperability.

Market research (RFI responses, prior contracts, Gartner/analyst input, site visits) precedes and informs requirement writing.

Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) or should-cost estimate is built before release and anchors price reasonableness during evaluation.

Standard RFP volume structure: Volume I administrative/representations, Volume II technical approach, Volume III past performance, Volume IV price/cost.

Proposal instructions must state page limits, font/margin rules, submission format, deadline with time zone, and the consequence of noncompliance (rejection or point deduction).

Questions and answers are consolidated into an amendment/addendum; all offerors receive identical information at the same time.

Late proposals are rejected unless the solicitation explicitly allows a late-submission exception (e.g., documented transmission error).

Proposal receipt controls: sealed receipt, time-stamped log, and no opening before the closing date protect integrity and defensibility.

Evaluation criteria and their relative weights belong in the RFP body, not in a separate internal document.

A pre-proposal conference/site visit is optional but, if held, its minutes become part of the solicitation record.

Small business / set-aside determinations and subcontracting plan requirements are stated in the instructions section, not left implicit.

Best Value Tradeoff (BVTO) permits award to a higher-priced, technically superior proposal; LPTA awards only to the lowest-priced technically acceptable offer.

Consensus scoring: evaluators score independently first, then reconcile differences; individual worksheets are retained as the record.

Common weighted model: Technical 40-50%, Past Performance 20-25%, Price 25-35%; weights and rating scale must be disclosed.

Color/adjectival ratings (Exceptional, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, Unacceptable) must map to defined descriptors in the evaluation plan.

Price realism vs. price reasonableness: realism asks whether the price is achievable for the proposed approach; reasonableness asks whether it is fair compared with the market/ICE.

Clarifications address minor or clerical errors and cannot change price or technical content; discussions allow offerors to revise proposals and require all offerors in the competitive range to be treated equally.

Competitive range: agencies may exclude proposals with no realistic chance of award, but must notify and debrief excluded offerors.

Debriefing must cover the basis for award and the evaluated strengths/weaknesses of the debriefed offeror's proposal, not competitors' proprietary data.

Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP): price is not adjusted for cost changes; suitable when requirements are well defined and risk is low.

Cost-Reimbursement (CPFF, CPIF, CPAF): used when requirements are uncertain; requires cost accounting system and limits fee to a stated percentage for CPFF.

Time-and-Materials (T&M): pays labor hours at fixed rates plus materials at cost; requires a ceiling and surveillance because cost risk is on the buyer.

Labor category rates should be tied to a rate card, with escalation capped and clearly stated for multi-year contracts.

Negotiation objectives: identify must-haves vs. tradeables, set target/reservation points, and document the rationale for concessions.

Definitization of a letter contract or undefinitized contract action must occur within a stated period (commonly 180 days) or the contract is at risk.

Payment terms (net 30 vs. milestone/acceptance-based) and invoicing requirements materially change effective price and must be evaluated.

Price analysis techniques: comparison with ICE, prior contract prices, published catalog rates, and parametric or analogous estimating.

Contract modification types: bilateral (mutual signature, changes scope/terms) vs. unilateral (change order within the Changes clause, equitable adjustment follows).

Acceptance criteria must be objective and testable; acceptance triggers payment and starts the warranty or maintenance period.

Deliverable tracking uses a CDRL or equivalent schedule with due dates, format, and review cycle.

Key performance indicators and service level agreements should have defined measurement windows, remedies, and escalation paths.

Past performance evaluations (e.g., CPARS) are recorded at contract close or annually and feed future source selections.

Contract closeout requires final acceptance, property disposition, final invoice/payment, and release of claims.

Change control board or equivalent reviews scope changes before a modification is issued to prevent unauthorized scope growth.

Records retention: maintain the contract file, evaluation record, and correspondence for the period required by regulation or policy.

Project paper structure: problem statement → background/market research → requirements → RFP design → evaluation methodology → award recommendation → implementation and risk plan.

Every claim in the paper must be traceable to a cited requirement ID, evaluation criterion, or source; unsupported assertions weaken the grade.

Include a requirements traceability matrix linking each requirement to an evaluation criterion and an acceptance test.

State the chosen contract type and justify it against requirement certainty, duration, and risk allocation.

Document the evaluation plan: weights, rating scale, consensus method, and how price realism/reasonableness will be assessed.

Risk section should use a register with likelihood, impact, mitigation owner, and trigger.

Include a schedule with milestones (release, questions, proposals due, evaluation, award) and dependencies.

Cite sources in a consistent style and keep appendices (sample RFP sections, scoring sheet) aligned with the body text.