Defense Primer: Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Contracts

bob7947 said:

This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service for Congress.  Members request such information so they can understand a subject of their work.

Here is your chance to see if Congress is properly informed.  See:

Defense Primer:  Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Contracts.

It seems ironic to me that Part 14 procedures are the default acquisition method unless another method can be justified but LPTA, which is a step above IFB is discouraged!!!!

“14.103 Policy.

14.103-1 General.

(a) Sealed bidding shall be used whenever the conditions in  6.401(a) are met. This requirement applies to any proposed contract action under  part  6.

(b) Sealed bidding may be used for classified acquisitions if its use does not violate agency security requirements.

(c) The policy for pricing modifications of sealed bid contract appears in  15.403-4(a)(1)(iii).”

joel hoffman said:

It seems ironic to me that Part 14 procedures are the default acquisition method unless another method can be justified but LPTA, which is a step above IFB is discouraged!!!!

Ironic? Yes, and unrealistic. And it's because the U.S. government does not have a functional apparatus for making and executing rational acquisition policy.

Congress and the executive branch are dysfunctional in countless ways. The judicial branch is busy writing 100+ page decisions that most citizens cannot understand in order to give judges' clerks something useful to do, while students at prestigious law schools who will soon be clerks are insulting and threatening invited speakers with whom they disagree. The OFPP is dead, though unburied. The FAR Council (capital "C") is merely a shadow. The FAR councils (lower case "c") are copyists, not thought leaders, and are overwhelmed by their copying workload. And although much of the workforce is neither professionally well-educated or trained, the government has given up on their education and training.

In short, my friend, things have gone to hell in a handbasket as we approach obligations of $1 trillion/year.

I was just looking up the history of LPTA within DoD.  The 2017 NDAA required publication of regulations within 120 days.  Obama signed the bill in October 2016.  The final DFARS was effective October 2019.  So that worked out to be around 1000 days.

I started to post here one big point missing in the CRS paper is 1102s liked LPTA for the wrong reasons - it was faster and easier for them, it shifted more responsibility for doing work to the program office, and it reduced the chance of protests.

There is no documented factual evidence of which I am aware which shows that the tradeoff process actually yields "best value." Assertions that it does are questionable in light of the fact that most tradeoff process source selections are based primarily on essay-writing contests that do not produce legally enforceable promises of performance outcomes. Moreover, the government does not routinely assess contract outcomes on the basis of source selection proposal evaluations. Yet every crappy contract performance is delivered by the offeror chosen as the best value.

Critical thinking.

The older I get, the more convinced I am that most acquisition policy is based on bullshit.

Vern Edwards said:

There is no documented factual evidence of which I am aware which shows that the tradeoff process actually yields "best value."

Since offerors that are not deemed "best value" don't get contracts, I don't think it can ever be proven that the predicted best value offeror is the actual best value offeror. 

In practice, "best value" is "best illusion."

There’s no feasible way to prove any contract approach is better than another.  The variables and contributing factors for success/failure are too numerous and how do you measure outcomes?  Maybe an AI model can do a prediction 😂

formerfed said:

There’s no feasible way to prove any contract approach is better than another.  The variables and contributing factors for success/failure are too numerous and how do you measure outcomes?  Maybe an AI model can do a prediction 😂

That would be interesting. You could run simulations with each offeror and see how they do.

The socio-economic demands to provide the ability for one and all to participate in Federal acquisition confuses the "whats best" model.  It used to be "negotiated procurements" now its best value where value is not just measured by final price as compared to final price.

Considering how best value has increased the time that leads up to a final price how about a system based on sealed bidding versus open bid?   Issue an RFI to get thoughts about the need then put it out as a sealed bid or an open bid.

Depends upon what you’re buying. I tend to agree for services.

I don’t agree for design-build construction when done right.

Deleted - Oops. Wrong thread

formerfed said:

There’s no feasible way to prove any contract approach is better than another.

"Contract approach" or contractor selection approach? I don't know what you mean by "contract approach." In fact, I don't know what you mean by "approach."

Vern Edwards said:

"Contract approach" or contractor selection approach? I don't know what you mean by "contract approach." In fact, I don't know what you mean by "approach."

Ok, contractor selection methodology

Why "method_ology_"? Why not just method?

Vern Edwards said:

Why "method_ology_"? Why not just method?

“Method” is probably a better term in this context.

You see "methodology" in RFPs all the time. "Describe your proposed methodology to accomplish the statement of work."

Seems nobody looks the word up in a good dictionary.

Cut and paste.