Proposed Bill on LPTA

Another justification and another report is required, see section 3 (5) and section 5.

A lobbying triumph for the Professional Services Council.

Wow...interesting legislation and actually fits well with the other conversation on fairness.  This legislation is proposed because simple LPTA competitions for complex IT solutions and services were not doing justice (fairness?) to neither the DOD, vendor community, nor taxpayer justice. 

My question to the grey-hairs on Wifcon (of which I am now one...not because of KSAs but because of some folicular discoloration)....Why?  Why are they legislating something that is already fairly clear and allowable under FAR? Is this a problem that needs to be legislated, or is it a DPAP issue that could have been resolved with a simple statement or memo?  Is it issued because KOs are not practicing sound business judgement and are defaulting to LPTA for the sake of convenience and expedience?

Jon,

Yes, this could have been solved in a different manner.

Look where the sponsors of the 2 bills are from.

Last week, there was a flurry of action on small business bills.  Some of bills had been wallowing in Congress without being seen for about a year.  What small business event will take place in Washington City in the next week?

The press release (http://www.warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ContentRecord_id=A4D27777-C176-4924-970A-C72128D00A60) states:

Quote

LPTA is a valuable tool, but it can undermine DOD procurement flexibility and should not be used to purchase complex, innovative programs.

Rhetorical question: Isn't dictating or prohibiting an approach what undermines DoD's (or any agency's) procurement flexibility?

I suppose for acquisition professionals who believe this is the wrong move, take comfort in the fact that it appears the language in the legislation may only state "to the maximum extent practicable."  Last time I saw that language go "unheeded" with no consequences (that I am aware of) was when this language was used for the FAR 13.5 Commercial Item Test Program.

jonmjohnson said:

Wow...interesting legislation and actually fits well with the other conversation on fairness.  This legislation is proposed because simple LPTA competitions for complex IT solutions and services were not doing justice (fairness?) to neither the DOD, vendor community, nor taxpayer justice. 

My question to the grey-hairs on Wifcon (of which I am now one...not because of KSAs but because of some folicular discoloration)....Why?  Why are they legislating something that is already fairly clear and allowable under FAR? Is this a problem that needs to be legislated, or is it a DPAP issue that could have been resolved with a simple statement or memo?  Is it issued because KOs are not practicing sound business judgement and are defaulting to LPTA for the sake of convenience and expedience?

Maybe the memo was deemed ineffective: http://bbp.dau.mil/docs/Appropriate_Use_of_Lowest_Priced_Technically_Acceptable_Source_Selec_Process_Assoc_Con_Type.pdf

This bill is nothing but a response to intense lobbying on behalf of beltway IT and technical support services firms. That's all there is to it. The sponsor is from Virginia. The recent DOD memos are attempts to head off legislation.

What I want to see is evidence, facts, that prove widespread misapplication of LPTA. All I have seen have been anecdotal reports.  

Whatever happened to evidence-based policymaking? See H.R. 1831, "Evidence-Based Policy Commission Act of 2016," signed into law by the president on March 30.

Well as a former KO at DISA, I can tell you that at DISA uses LPTA a lot for complex IT buys because the program offices demand its use because the DISA PALTs are shorter for FFP LPTA.  When the KOs tell the program offices that FFP LPTA is not the best fit given the nature of their requirement, the program offices go to their SESs who then call the HCA who then tells the KOs to just do what the program offices want.  I have no idea if this particular practice is widespread in DoD.  See the DISA ENCORE III procurement (includes protests filed by CACI & Booz Allen: https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=02f89205a546e6874148234739e9ac95&tab=core&_cview=1

I now no longer assume its inexperienced KO, I now tend to assume its done at the direction of others above the KO.