<div class="description">
<dl><dd>Thesis advisor(s): Mark W. Stone, Jeffery A. Warmington</dd>
<dd>"June 1994."</dd>
<dd>Thesis (M.S. in Management) Naval Postgraduate School, June 1994</dd>
<dd>Bibliography: p. 149-150</dd>
<dd>A common complaint among many contractors working with Army Material Command is that debriefings do not provide enough information to completely satisfy contractors as to why they were not selected for contract award when they are an unsuccessful offeror. This thesis reviews the regulations that cover debriefings, looks at the current debriefing process and recommends ways to improve debriefings within Army Material Command. A survey of contracting officers within Army Material Command and unsuccessful offerors that contract with Army Material Command was done to determine what improvements could be made to the debriefing process. The respondents indicated that many modifications could be done to improve the process. Some of the thesis's recommendations are: debriefings should be offered to all unsuccessful offerors, debriefings should be conducted in a timely manner, there should be no limits placed on who may attend debriefings, and evaluators should participate in debriefings. Additionally, more information should be given out to unsuccessful offerors by covering strengths and weaknesses, covering all evaluated areas, debriefing down to the sub-factor level and releasing the Source Selection Authority decision document</dd>
<dd>Mode of access: World Wide Web</dd>
<dd>System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader</dd>
<dd>US Army (USA) author</dd></dl><br>Subjects: Management</div>
<div class="fn value">
Nutbrown, Curtis H.</div>
Internet Archive identifier