Evaluation Criteria

I know of nothing in statute, regulation, or case law that would prohibit it, and I think it makes sense. It has been done, apparently without causing a problem. See e.g., Tulane University, GAO Dec. B-259912, 95-1 CPD P 210:

The RFP provided that technical proposals would be evaluated against seven evaluation factors and numerous subfactors on a 2000–point scale. The technical evaluation factors were: (1) Responsiveness and Technical Quality of Proposal (500 points); (2) Ability to Perform Tasks Commensurate with Assigned Contractor Responsibilities (550 points); (3) Project Management Strategy and Workplan (100 points); (4) Qualifications and Experience of Long–Term Personnel (550 points); (5) Short–Term Personnel (75 points); (6) Information Dissemination (75 points); and (7) Institutional Qualifications and Capabilities (150 points).

See also PeopleWorks, Inc., GAO Dec. B-257296, 94-2 CPD P 89:

Section M advised offerors of the following technical evaluation factors and weights: offeror's experience and qualification (35 points); qualifications of key personnel (35 points); quality of proposal (30 points); and participation of minority/small/women business enterprises (5 points). Technical factors were more important than price, and award was to be made to the offeror with the responsive proposal most advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered.

And see Labat-Anderson, Inc., GAO Dec. B-246071, 92-2 CPD P 244:

The RFP set forth the following technical evaluation factors and subfactors for award: (1) institutional experience (15 points)--including small business development experience, developing world experience and venture capital experience; (2) technical approach (30 points)--including monitoring/evaluation strategy, design/approach to TAF, design approach to education/promotion, and design/approach to BECF; (3) contract personnel (50 points)--including field staff, and home office staff; and (4) quality of proposal (5 points). Cost was not assigned a numerical weight for evaluation purposes, but offerors were informed that cost proposals would be reviewed for reasonableness.

I'm not sure what "quality of proposal" meant in those cases, but I presume it meant what it said. In none of those cases did the protester challenge the use of proposal quality as an evaluation factor, but I cannot think of any basis for them to do so. I think it would be okay.

Has anyone ever attempted to make a contractors "ability to propose", aka quality of proposal submission (clarity, error free, aligned with source selection factors, etc.) a source selection requirement?

The reason that I ask is that it seems to me that an inherent ability of a contractor to work under a multiple award IDIQ (especially one with an aggressive ordering processes) is their ability to produce quality proposals in a timely fashion. I have read about PoP quizzes and other types of tests being incorporated into a formal source selection but the focus was on technical capability not necessarily their overall proposal capabilities.

Any input, suggestions, comments or warnings about potentially making this a source selection criterion would be greatly appreciated.

I have never tried the scheme you suggest. What is the argument in favor of focusing on "overall proposal capabilities" over "technical capability"? On its face, it seems silly to me to favor companies that write great proposals over those that do great work, but if you're suggesting using it as a subsidiary factor, it might be useful.

Navy:

The ability to write good proposals is important if they'll have to do it often and the government will have to evaluate the proposals. A proposal is a product, after all, and the ability to write a good proposals is indicative of skill at reasoning, organizing, planning, writing, and process and project management. I think you are underestimating how difficult it can be to write a good proposal on short order. I've done it and I've taught it, and it can be very hard. I think the idea makes a lot of sense in the context that ndean has described. He didn't say that the criterion would outweigh experience or past performance.

Has anyone ever attempted to make a contractors "ability to propose", aka quality of proposal submission (clarity, error free, aligned with source selection factors, etc.) a source selection requirement?

The reason that I ask is that it seems to me that an inherent ability of a contractor to work under a multiple award IDIQ (especially one with an aggressive ordering processes) is their ability to produce quality proposals in a timely fashion. I have read about PoP quizzes and other types of tests being incorporated into a formal source selection but the focus was on technical capability not necessarily their overall proposal capabilities.

Any input, suggestions, comments or warnings about potentially making this a source selection criterion would be greatly appreciated.

Wouldn't that fall under "compliance with solicitation requirements" at FAR 15.304( c )(2):

The quality of the product or service shall be addressed in every source selection through consideration of one or more non-cost evaluation factors such as past performance, compliance with solicitation requirements, technical excellence, management capability, personnel qualifications, and prior experience...

The AFCAP solicitation (currently on FBO), contemplates a TO response during source selection where offerors have 24 hours to respond to a TO request with a proposal. The Draft Section L&M are currently posted on FBO.

Solicitation #: FA8051-13-R-0001

Title: ESG Air Force Contract Augmentation Program (AFCAP) IV

Link: https://www.fbo.gov/notices/0f36b08b9158c40c7ebf83e4f5898c4e