Factors of approximately equal importance are fine.  I've done it many times -- it is my default position until I decide that one or more factors really are more important than others.

You are using far too many words.  Is this over $5.5 Million?  If yes, all you have to say in the solicitation is that all three factors (two technical plus price) are of approximately equal importance and the Government will select the best value offer using a tradeoff approach.

ji20874 said:

You are using far too many words.  Is this over $5.5 Million?  If yes, all you have to say in the solicitation is that all three factors (two technical plus price) are of approximately equal importance and the Government will select the best value offer using a tradeoff approach.

This answer couldn’t be better.  It’s perfect.

@ji20874, thank you. I clarified my original post to reflect the requirement is an SOW, that is FFP, over $5.5M. We are considering comparative analysis to determine best value and may utilize a trade off after price analysis and technical evaluation. We have encountered legal counsel making us do trade off when it is not warranted because we said we "are" doing it (I want to streamline this). At my agency, I believe they read way to much into everything and complicate matters. I know words matter, so I'm trying to make this clear and streamlined (without over complicating it, which can be challenging depending on reviewers and approvals).

@formerfed, thank you. Which answer couldn't be better?

Just the brevity in stating the three factors are approximately equal and the government will use a trade off approach.

A trade off approach really isn’t rocket science.  But I think that you should also describe what you mean by that term.  

Best value means that you are considering both quality [technical, non-price] and price of offers. A trade off approach generally means that you reserve the right to pay more for a conforming [proposal, offer, quote] that provides sufficient additional value to justify the additional cost over lower priced, conforming [proposal(s), offer(s), quote(s)].

[Select your applicable terms (e.g., proposal, offer, quote, etc.)]

If there is a protest, the protest forum would use similar descriptions to define best value and the trade off comparisons to establish the standards for justifying the basis of award, if those terms aren’t otherwise defined in a solicitation, task order competition, etc.

Many State governments and Industry organizations are using the term “best value” (BV) in the sense that both quality of the non-price and price are considered. That is to distinguish from “low bid”and “Quality (or “Qualification”) Based Selections” (QBS).

joel hoffman said:

But I think that you should also describe what you mean by that term.

I disagree.  The word "tradeoff" already had a meaning -- we do not need solicitations with homemade definitions.

Yes, but describe the “meaning”, so everyone is on the same page.

Once definitions become part of the described process, it adds complications and sets the stage for protests based on terminology.  All that’s needed in the solicitation is what ji20874 already mentioned.  Orders are supposed to be simple.  Too many agencies decide to make them complicated.    

Let’s not forget what this process is about.  It’s getting the government a good deal to optimally meet a program/mission need in a timely and responsive manner.  Placing orders against multiple award IDIQ contracts is supposed to be a streamlined way of doing that.  Adding a complicated source selection process with extensive bureaucratic details complicated things, adds delays, and sets the stage for losers to find a way for a second chance.  That’s not what FAR 16.505 is supposed to be.

joel hoffman said:

Yes, but describe the “meaning”, so everyone is on the same page.

I disagree.  The word "tradeoff" already had a meaning -- we do not need solicitations with homemade definitions meanings.

So, let’s review what the task order notice of fair competition would appear to explain  to competitors,  as recommended here.

There are three factors approximately equal in importance - two technical and price.

The Government will select the best value offer using a tradeoff approach.

Im assuming that there will be some type of evaluation of the quality of the technical proposals and some type of evaluation or comparison of prices.

From Ray’s posts, Ray apparently wants:

1. to make a “comparative analysis to determine best value” and

2. “may use a trade off after price and technical evaluation”.

Im not sure what “comparative analysis to determine best value”  means. What is Ray comparing? 

Does this mean simply comparing each proposer’s two technical factors and prices to each other to rate the three factors then decide what proposal provides the best value? How would Ray determine the best value? 

Or will Ray evaluate each proposer’s  technical factors against some “comparative” evaluation criteria , somehow evaluate prices then compare the technical and prices between proposers? (Looks like some type of tradeoff process to me).

Ray indicated that Legal apparently says it is mandatory to do a trade off analysis (when we say we are doing it). But Ray apparently wants that to be done only if necessary.

Is Ray indicating that no “tradeoff analysis” is necessary if the highest  rated technical proposal is also the lowest priced proposal and no other higher priced proposal offers any technical advantages over the highest rated technical proposal?

Well, it is true that there is no tradeoff in that case. There is nothing to tradeoff. You simply document the fact that the best technical proposal is also the lowest priced proposal right? But that is still a tradeoff analysis in its simplest form - that no tradeoff is involved.

From a reread of Ray’s first post, Ray obviously would analyze whether or not to trade-off paying more when there are any technical proposals offering some type of advantages or additional value over the lowest priced technical proposal. Well that is a tradeoff analysis.

I think that the only way to avoid a tradeoff  (paying more than the minimum conforming proposal) is to only choose the lowest priced conforming proposal or to simply add up total scores of a proposal to define what is the “best value”.

People usually make best value determinations almost every day when shopping, if they ever decide to buy anything other than the lowest priced product that would meet their minimum requirements.

They are trading off paying a higher price for additional value when they decide to buy a product offering any advantages, desirability,  value or benefits over another lower priced item.

I just don’t know how Ray would use a “comparative analysis” to distinguish from “using a tradeoff” to determine the best value.

As I see it, comparative evaluation is simply one way to do a tradeoff.  The offers are compared directly to each other (without assigning scores, points, or adjectival ratings) and the best value offer is selected considering all the factors.  

Even when a tradeoff process is declared in a solicitation, we know from GAO case law that a tradeoff need not be documented when one offer is both higher technically rated and lower priced in comparison to another.

A comparative process as described above still uses a tradeoff analysis to determine the winner. A decision is made to trade off or not tradeoff paying a higher price. And if the lowest priced proposal is the best price, there is obviously no tradeoff. But you compared the proposals. One would still document the basis of the selection for the record.

I am middle of the road regarding “tradeoff”.   I struggle that the term is already defined (in the parent contract and/or a notice of fair opportunity).  FAR Part 2 does not define tradeoff.   FAR 52.202-1 provides that as a clause it only applies to a provision or a clause.

FAR part 16.505(b)(iv) provides for orders over $5.5 million that the notice of fair opportunity must provide for “(C) Disclosure of the significant factors and subfactors, including cost or price, that the agency expects to consider in evaluating proposals, and their relative importance;” and further states in (D) that if “best value” is used then such an award decision must be documented.  There is no discussion that the term tradeoff must be stated in the notice but is only discussed with regard to an award documentation.

Most importantly FAR 16.505(b)(v)(B) states that “Formal evaluation plans or scoring of quotes or offers are not required.”

Mixing of metaphors between FAR part 15 and 16 is a slippery slope which I believe is happening in this thread.   So in part I agree with @ji20874 however I do understand @joel hoffmanconcern but I believe Joel's intent is overkill in a fair opportunity selection process.

So by example here is what I believe what @Ray L. Savoy ought to state in the Fair Opportunity Notice with the caveat that my thoughts are created in a vacuum of sorts as I do not know what the ordering clause of the parent contract says with regard to placement procedures for task orders with regard to application of fair opportunity.

Example Notice - This is a notice of fair opportunity.  In reviewing responses to this notice comparative analysis will be used.  Technical factors are __________ and _______________ and are equal.  These factors when combined are less in important than price.

Carl, I agree not to over complicate the task order competition but I don’t think that your example - for a competition exceeding five and a half million dollars - really informs the competing firms how they can win the competition. All they would know that price is the most important factor/consideration and that there are two equally important technical factors. That’s it.

Thats not fair to the firms,  who have to invest in time and resources to prepare technical proposals and strategize how to best meet your needs in a competitive manner.  

C Culham said:

Example Notice - This is a notice of fair opportunity.  In reviewing responses to this notice comparative analysis will be used.  Technical factors are __________ and _______________ and are equal.  These factors when combined are less in important than price.

I'm good with Carl's words.  It fully satisfies FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iv).

Joel, please review FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iv).  You may reasonably assume that some proposal-writing instructions for the technical factors (page limits, submission instructions, and so forth) will be included in the fair opportunity notice if applicable.

ji20874 said:

I'm good with Carl's words.  It fully satisfies FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iv).

Joel, please review FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iv).  You may reasonably assume that some proposal-writing instructions for the technical factors (page limits, submission instructions, and so forth) will be included in the fair opportunity notice if applicable.

I disagree that Carl’s words fully satisfy 16.505(b)(1)(iv).

“(iv) Orders exceeding $5.5 million. For task or delivery orders in excess of $5.5 million, the requirement to provide all awardees a fair opportunity to be considered for each order shall include, at a minimum—
...(D) Where award is made on a best value basis, a written statement documenting the basis for award and the relative importance of quality and price or cost factors; “

There is no description of the basis of award, which would help the proposers prepare their strategy and their proposal.

Simply stating that it will be best value award does not describe the basis of award. Carl didn’t directly state that it is best value either, although such is implied.

Since one must state the basis of award, how would this sentence be an overkill?

“The government reserves the right to pay more for a conforming [proposal, offer, quote] that provides sufficient additional value to justify the additional cost over lower priced, conforming [proposal(s), offer(s), quote(s)].”

[Note to specifier: Select your applicable terms (e.g., proposal, offer, quote, etc.)]

Let’s not forget these awardees already competed for awards with lengthy technical proposals.  Ordering is supposed to be streamlined.  There shouldn’t be a need to defining things, complex evaluations, or lengthy proposals.  Many GWACS have a good track record of 10 day solicitation period, 5-10 days evaluation and section, and order awards. The key is knowing how to conduct the process.  It’s simple and straightforward until people don’t make it that way.

One agency and their CO asked for me to not disclose their identity.  But companies here might recognize this.  They issue an RFQ stating a need.  Responses are limited - generally a couple pages for technical.  Experience/past performance requires the identify of ALL same or similar work in recent years.  Every instance requires a contact point and multiple backups are permitted.  If the government can’t verify performance in five days from any reference, the company receives neutral.  Omitting experience or false references is grounds for further consideration.  Selections are done in less than 10 days.

formerfed said:

Let’s not forget these awardees already competed for awards with lengthy technical proposals.  Ordering is supposed to be streamlined.  There shouldn’t be a need to defining things, complex evaluations, or lengthy proposals.  Many GWACS have a good track record of 10 day solicitation period, 5-10 days evaluation and section, and order awards. The key is knowing how to conduct the process.  It’s simple and straightforward until people don’t make it that way.

Formerfed, we don’t know here what two technical factors or SOW that Ray is evaluating for his task order or what the ID/IQ covers. Ray did not mention a GWAC.

I don’t necessarily disagree with you in principle.

However, ID/IQ task orders that exceed $5.5 million may often be for more complex scopes of work, especially for construction or design-build projects.

The comparative factors might or might not be significant here.

On 5/3/2020 at 5:50 PM, ji20874 said:

I disagree.  The word "tradeoff" already had a meaning -- we do not need solicitations with homemade definitions.

Okay what is the meaning of “tradeoff” and how does the “meaning” relate to the basis of award, which must be stated in the fair opportunity announcement here?

You don't know what tradeoff means?

ji20874 said:

You don't know what tradeoff means?

I know what it means. You said it has “a meaning” and I’m looking for for your “official” definition of the word to substitute for my apparent “homemade definition”.

For Part 15 Source selections, the Tradeoff acquisition process is described in FAR 15.101-1  and agency supplements and references thereto. For DoD the actual analyses are also described in detail in the 2016 version of the DoD Source Selection Procedures in Paragraph 3.9 “Best Value Decision”

For DoD, the selection authority first makes a “comparative analysis” between the proposals after proposals have been evaluated against evaluation criteria.

For DoD source selections, there are three possible outcomes from the comparative analysis:  

1. The proposal with the lowest total evaluated price is superior in terms of non- cost factors;
2. There are no meaningful distinctions between the non-cost portions of the proposals;
3. The proposal with the lowest total evaluated price is not superior in terms of non-cost factors.

The Best Value determination is pretty clear in the first two outcomes. The lowest priced conforming proposal would represent the best value.

However, in the case of the third outcome, the decision is not as clear. The Selection authority must perform a tradeoff analysis among competing proposals to  consider whether or not the benefits of the non-cost strengths in a higher rated proposal warrant the additional price premium.

I asked what Ray meant by “comparative analysis” and Tradeoff analysis, if necessary. I wasn’t sure whether Ray meant comparing proposals directly to establish factor ratings or making the comparative analysis that is described in the DoD Source Selection Process, under the Best Value Decision methodology.

I should have noticed the apparent tip off when Ray said that they would perform a Tradeoff analysis, if necessary, after the comparative analysis. Others concluded that Ray was referring to direct comparisons between proposals for evaluation purposes, whether or not ratings were to be assigned.

Now I think that Ray was referring to the steps that are outlined in the 2016 DoD Source selection procedures to Determine the proposal offering the best value. That would answer my confusion about why Ray used the two terms separately for a tradeoff acquisition process. 

Regardless of what the steps are called, Ray was probably describing  a form of tradeoff process proposed for a task order competition.

I think all agree that task order competitions should be streamlined  as much as possible.

However, if the best value basis of award would allow the government to award to other than the lowest confirming offer, some form of a tradeoff process would have to be used. 

There were a couple of simplified statements to describe the technical factors, their relative importance and the relative importance of price factor vice the non-price factors. Those statements would indicate that the government was going to use a best value method. They also indicate that some type of tradeoff might be necessary. I have proposed a sentence to describe the governments right to select a higher priced, conforming [proposal, quote, offer] (name as applicable), if it warrants paying more than a lower priced, conforming [proposal, quote, offer]. That would be determined as the best value to the government.

Its pretty straight forward and not overly complicated, doesn’t directly use the Part 15 terms.

I do think that a protest forum might apply some Part 15 standards of review though, since it is essentially a trade-off type best value process, vice some other,  simpler method.

Ray didn’t indicate the importance of price relative to the non-price factors. That must be stated, as referenced above in 16.505. Price could be more important than non-price; all three could be equal in importance (meaning that, when combined, non-price are more important than price) ; price could be equal to non-price (meaning that, when non—priced are combined, price is the single most important factor).

I don’t think that Ray needs to or even should use the terms “comparative analysis” and/or “tradeoff analysis” to refer to the steps involved.

Ray, simply referring to a “comparative analysis”, without explaining what you are comparing, is ambiguous as evidenced in this thread. That term has a specific meaning in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, which are agency specific and which are probably not familiar to contractors or those government employees other than the DoD acquisition personnel using those procedures.  Some people apparently think that it means to evaluate proposals against each other. I wondered if it was that or what turns out to be the DOD coined step in a tradeoff process.

joel hoffman said:

There is no description of the basis of award

Disagree as you may I believe my statement does provide that the reasoning or justification for award will be two technical factors of equal weight and price.   In fact I find nothing in FAR 16.505 that there must be a description of basis of award during the fair opportunity notice period. 

joel hoffman said:

For Part 15 Source selections,

Here in is the problem.   You have now elected to specifically enlist FAR part 15  which by my read of the overall thread is your thinking all along.  Get away from it and live with the fact that "t(T)he contracting officer may exercise broad discretion in developing appropriate order placement procedures. The contracting officer should keep submission requirements to a minimum. Contracting officers may use streamlined procedures, including oral presentations." and "the policies in subpart  15.3 do not apply to the ordering process."  So in truth leave FAR 15 and especially 15.3 at the door.    My read of the DFARS at subpart 216.5 supports such an ideal as well.

To the OP and continued discussion I will agree that "complex" requirements must be considered but I am with @formerfed such complexity should have been known at the outset and the strategy for an IDIQ solution would (should)  address such a situation in the selection process for parent awardees.  And if it is felt that complexity will possibly exist after award of the parent IDIQ's then craft fair opportunity processes and state them in the parent IDIQ that allows for "u(U)sing a multiphased approach when effort required to respond to a potential order may be resource intensive (e.g., requirements are complex or need continued development), where all contractors are initially considered on price considerations (e.g., rough estimates), and other considerations as appropriate (e.g., proposed conceptual approach, past performance). The contractors most likely to submit the highest value solutions are then selected for one-on-one sessions with the Government to increase their understanding of the requirements, provide suggestions for refining requirements, and discuss risk reduction measures."   

Bottom line use IDIQ with the streamlined processes and discretion allowed and get away from making a fair opportunity task order selection look like a FAR part 13, 14, or 15 process.   It is not it a selection process for task or delivery orders that must consider the guiding principles of FAR part 16 and that is stipulated in the parent contract that every contractor signatory to the parent contract has agreed to!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If the government hasn’t provided the fair opportunity selection criteria in the solicitation and base contract 16.504 (a)(4)(iv) for the type and complexity of the task order being discussed herein,  then it should stand to reason that it should be included in the Fair Opportunity Notice. 

What you propose doesn’t inform the pool members anything other than the factors and their relative importance to strategize how to be submit a competitive task order proposal for a large, complex task order. My proposed sentence informs them of the selection criteria without any reference to Part 15.

Ive been involved in the task order process that has been used for billions of dollars of task orders for Army construction and design build projects which included similar selection criteria statements.

It makes sense.

 If you think the minimal info tat you proposed to the pool members is adequate then I disagree.

Quote

15.101-1 Tradeoff process.

       (a) A tradeoff process is appropriate when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror.

       (b) When using a tradeoff process, the following apply:

            (1) All evaluation factors and significant subfactors that will affect contract award and their relative importance shall be clearly stated in the solicitation; and

            (2) The solicitation shall state whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than, approximately equal to, or significantly less important than cost or price.

       (c) This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented in the file in accordance with 15.406.

Going back to the definition of trade off, the FAR pretty much lays out details.  So there’s no real need to add more language other than stating evaluation factors and relative importance unless you want.  You evaluate responses,  assess benefits, decide if benefits are worth a higher price, and make a decision.  The problem I see is the more you add to what is required, the greater risk a disgruntled vendor can find a fault or crack.

formerfed said:

Going back to the definition of trade off, the FAR pretty much lays out details.  So there’s no real need to add more language other than stating evaluation factors and relative importance unless you want.  You evaluate responses,  assess benefits, decide if benefits are worth a higher price, and make a decision.  The problem I see is the more you add to what is required, the greater risk a disgruntled vendor can find a fault or crack.

Formerfed-  my point is that, if you intend to use some type of tradeoff method, you must tell the pool members that you are using a “tradeoff” method or simply describe the selection criteria ( e.g., what my sentence says). From experience, I doubt that an ID/IQ  contract would include the specific selection criteria, unless all task orders would be issued using the same selection criteria. Our multiple award task order contacts were designed to allow the government to use a variety of pricing methods for task orders, such as IFB or trade off or low price technically acceptable, etc., to fit particular tasks.

Using the term trade off, by reference to that term, which is  only described in part 15, could result in a Protest forum linking certain processes to Part 15.

Of course, the government could use some other type of selection criteria that involves a trade off. However, it would have to describe those selection criteria either in the base contract or in the notice a fair opportunity..

in the original post in this thread, it should be obvious that the OP was looking for selection criteria wording hat probably was not described specifically in the base contract. The OP wanted to know what experience others had with equally weighted technical factors and if his detailed description of the processes and selection criteria seem to make sense.

my primary concern was that he uses the term comparative analysis without any explanation, and then includes the possibility of a trade off analysis, then has a lengthy description of the selection criteria. His use of “comparative analysis” is ambiguous. It has more than one meaning due to the proclivity of DOD to complicate everything in its source selection process. Here in this thread, there were at least two possible meanings of the term comparative analysis.

The OP would not have to use either the term trade-off or comparative analysis if he just describes the selection criteria that inherently include comparisons between proposals (e.g., as I posited in my one sentence). Thus, there would be no direct reference to the FAR part 15 or DOD supplement processes.

The bottom line is that you have to tell the contractor something about how they can strategize to provide the best value for the government to win the competition.

Oversimplification is as bad as overcomplication

Joel,

You did a good job of bringing us back to the OPs dilemma and question.  He wasn’t asking about what we ended up with discussing now.  I can’t disagree with what you said though.

Ill go back to ji20874’s initial post

Quote

all you have to say in the solicitation is that all three factors (two technical plus price) are of approximately equal importance and the Government will select the best value offer using a tradeoff approach.

That satisfies all the FAR part 16 ordering requirements and is straightforward.

formerfed said:

Joel,

You did a good job of bringing us back to the OPs dilemma and question.  He wasn’t asking about what we ended up with discussing now.  I can’t disagree with what you said though.

Ill go back to ji20874’s initial post

That satisfies all the FAR part 16 ordering requirements and is straightforward.

Yes it does but -  it refers to the term tradeoff, which is only described in Part 15.

joel hoffman said:

The bottom line is that you have to tell the contractor something about how they can strategize to provide the best value for the government to win the competition.

Hmmm...  For a fair opportunity consideration over $5.5 Million, it seems to me that we have to tell the contractors what is required by FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iv).

joel hoffman said:

Using the term trade off, by reference to that term, which is  only described in part 15, could result in a Protest forum linking certain processes to Part 15.

One can use a tradeoff approach in a fair opportunity consideration without invoking any of the procedures of FAR subpart 15.3; indeed, subpart 15.3 procedures do not apply to fair opportunity considerations  (even when using a tradeoff approach).  There should be no fear of using a tradeoff approach in a fair opportunity consideration.

I don’t necessarily disagree with ji, but either the contract or the task order notice is supposed to describe the “selection criteria”. Technically, the term “tradeoff approach” is a “process” and it is only described in Part 15.

joel hoffman said:

...either the contract or the task order notice is supposed to describe the “selection criteria”.

Really?  Does FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iv) require "selection criteria"?  You put it in quotes, but I cannot tell from where you are quoting.  FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iv) calls for listing the factors in relative order of importance and basis for award in a fair opportunity notice over $5.5 Million.  I cannot tell where you are quoting from, and I question your statement to any degree that it goes beyond FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iv).