The emphasis at Aeronautical Systems Division (ASD) is to execute a source selection without discussions or written communication, i.e., deficiency requests, clarification requests, or best and final offers. This initiative to conduct a "streamlined" source selection demands the receipt of quality cost proposals. However, the requisite quality has not always been present for recent training system source selections.

Each Training Systems Request for Proposal (RFP) results in the receipt of a wide variety of cost proposals. Some provide much more documentation/information than can possibly be evaluated under the streamlined process while others are deficient or noncompliant as to content or procedures. A common problem is the application of the full (production) funding concept.

The move away from discussions and deficiency reports makes it essential for the offeror to submit a properly structured cost proposal on the first submission. This paper will describe the key elements of a minimally acceptable cost proposal and the make-up and operation of the source selection cost panel. An analysis of past source selection cost proposal deficiencies will be provided along with examples and corrective actions. These past deficiencies come from the historical records of training system deficiency and clarification requests sent out by ASD along with the personal experiences of many cost panel chairmen. The intent of this paper is not to decrease or increase the official government requirements but to give insight on how these requirements can be met in an efficient and sensible way. Our desire is to communicate this information in order that offerors will not repeat past mistakes.