Is "Low Priced Functionally Better" different than a "Tradeoff"?
Started by August · May 13, 2013 · 6 replies
- AOriginal post
August
May 13, 2013 · 13y ago
A recent article is being held up by my agency as a description of a new concept to consider for evaluating offers. The link to the article is here:
http://fcw.com/Artic...ce-luddeke.aspx
I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how "low priced functionally better" (LPFB) is different than the Tradeoff process described in 15.101-1.
Does anyone see how LPFB is different than an evaluation design that describes the weight of the price compared to the weight of the technical, in terms other than LPTA?
- n
napolik
May 13, 2013 · 13y ago
I don't think this fellow knows the substance of source selection law, regulation and terminology. In my view, he is trying to emphasize 2 things: 1) Tradeoff source selection, and 2) Performance Based Service Acquisition.
- A
August
May 13, 2013 · 13y ago
Napolik,
I think you're right.
I get puzzled when folks who should know better (perhaps not the author of that article) seem enamored of an idea that should be old news to them.
It makes my agencies' leadership seem so gullible.
- b
brian
May 13, 2013 · 13y ago
If I understood the article, the author is arguing at first for abandoning LPTA completely.
But then goes on to say that LPFB (tradeoff) is better than LPTA in some cases.
Hold onto your chair.
Where I sit, the room is starting to spin.
- N
Navy_Contracting_4
May 14, 2013 · 13y ago
If I understood the article, the author is arguing at first for abandoning LPTA completely.
But then goes on to say that LPFB (tradeoff) is better than LPTA in some cases.
Hold onto your chair.
Where I sit, the room is starting to spin.
brian,
I don't think the author ever argues for abandoning LPTA completely. Witness the first sentence of his second paragraph - "The LPTA approach has its place and can work well for commoditized services with clearly defined, low-risk requirements. . ."
- T
TAP
May 14, 2013 · 13y ago
As I read this, LPFB is LPTA as opposed to a tradeoff process, but what is "TA" is a moving target. Sounds OK in theory, but I'm not sure how this would work in practice?
- G
Guest Vern Edwards
May 14, 2013 · 13y ago
The author wrote:
The LPTA approach has its place and can work well for commoditized services with clearly defined, low-risk requirements — think facilities maintenance. But "technically acceptable" implies minimum performance expectations based on what we know has worked in the past and does little to keep up with new demands or evolving threats. In other words, LPTA encourages government and industry to settle for "good enough" just to hit a price point.
That is wrong. LPTA does not mean "minimum performance expectations." The government can set the level of acceptability as high as it wants. "Acceptable," i.e., "good enough," can be a scooter or a Lamborghini.
The level of professional ignorance is this business is sky high.