Economical LPTA

I was recently asked a question and would like to see if anyone has a reaction to my answer, pro or con. When conducting a lowest price technically acceptable source selection (see FAR 15.101-2), if the offeror with the lowest price is technically acceptable, may the agency award to that offeror without evaluating the technical acceptability of the other offerors?

I said yes, and recommended that the solicitation announce the plan to use the procedure.

I am familiar with the language in FAR Subpart 15.3 and do not think anything therein or elsewhere in FAR bars such a procedure. I found no GAO decisions that bear on the question.

I would say yes, award can be made without evaluating the technical portion of the other offerors. The reason I say that is, what would be achieved by evaluating the remaining proposals? Under LPTA you are awarding to the offeror with the lowest price on a go/no-go basis for technical factors. So it doesn't matter how "good" the offerors technical solution is, as long as they pass the acceptable threshold, then it comes down to price. So common sense would tell me that you would do the price evaluation first, rank the offers by price, and then not need to go any farther once you found a technically acceptable offer.

Yes. I don't even think the solicitation would have to say anything special.

Vern: The only downside of not reviewing the other offers for technical acceptability would be if one of those other offers disclosed information that would shed some doubt on the low offeror's promise. For instance, if the solicitation included detailed design specifications and there was some requirement to procure a subassembly from a directed source (such as on a source controlled drawing/spec) and that particular source was no longer in a position to provide that subassembly. The low offeror may have used prior quotes for the obsolete component as the basis for formulating its price without realizing that the component was obsolete, whereas other companies may have learned of the obsolescence and qualified their proposals on developing a new source/component. It may sound unlikely, but I've seen it happen.

But generally, and depending on what you are buying, I agree with Don and jtolli.

I don't see any reason you'd have to evaluate the technical acceptability of other offerors either - but LindaK does bring up a good example of where doing so may be valuable. I think that the possibility of such an event occurring has to be weighed against the efficiencies gained by not evaluating the remaining proposals. That could be determined on a case by case basis. I do like the idea of saying you'll do this in the solicitation, because even though you may not have to do so, it is one less area that an unsuccessful offeror could protest. I could anticipate if you don't say it, and in a debriefing an offeror asks if his technical proposal was acceptable or not, when you told him you didn't evaluate it some would go through the roof and protest right away. They'd almost certainly lose if it's solely on those grounds, but you'd still have a protest to deal with nonetheless.

Picking up on Linda's point, another offeror's response may show a problem with the government's spec/SOW or an alternative approach that's more attractive to the government.

I agree it sounds good and would simplify the evaluation process, but how would you be able to debrief unsuccessful offerors if you haven't even evaluated their proposals?

I agree with Vern, LindaK and oldarmy, but disagree with Don Acquisition.

The RFP should state this approach because FAR 15.101-2 states:

Proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-cost/price factors. It doesn't state that proposals with a higher evaluated price aren't evaluated. Based on this language, I think not evaluating proposals is risky without some language in the RFP letting offerors know up front.

Following up on oldarmy's post: FAR 15.506 states that the CO needs to identify significant weaknesses and deficiencies and you won't be able to do that without first evaluating the proposals. How would you provide reasonable responses to their questions? However, if the RFP states up front that if the lowest evaluated price is technically acceptable as stated in jtolli's post then I think it would be OK to not evaluate the other proposals. That way the offerors would know that they may not get more information in the debriefing and could fend off a protest at mike-wolff observed. If they found out at the debriefing that technical proposals weren't evaluated, then they'd probably protest. Might not win, but they'd protest.

I agree with Vern, LindaK and oldarmy, but disagree with Don Acquisition.

The RFP should state this approach because FAR 15.101-2 states:

Proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-cost/price factors. It doesn't state that proposals with a higher evaluated price aren't evaluated. Based on this language, I think not evaluating proposals is risky without some language in the RFP letting offerors know up front.

I don't understand your argument. Are you saying that FAR 15.101-2 precludes the use of an Economical LPTA unless such an approach is stated in the solicitation? Or are you saying that you think it's a good idea to state that you are using the Economical LPTA approach in the solicitation?

I don't understand your argument. Are you saying that FAR 15.101-2 precludes the use of an Economical LPTA unless such an approach is stated in the solicitation? Or are you saying that you think it's a good idea to state that you are using the Economical LPTA approach in the solicitation?

I prefer the "better safe than sorry" approach and think that it's a good idea to state that you're using the economical LPTA approach in the solicitation.

I was recently asked a question and would like to see if anyone has a reaction to my answer, pro or con. When conducting a lowest price technically acceptable source selection (see FAR 15.101-2), if the offeror with the lowest price is technically acceptable, may the agency award to that offeror without evaluating the technical acceptability of the other offerors?

I said yes, and recommended that the solicitation announce the plan to use the procedure.

I am familiar with the language in FAR Subpart 15.3 and do not think anything therein or elsewhere in FAR bars such a procedure. I found no GAO decisions that bear on the question.

Vern,

You may have already considered this, but FAR 15.305(a)(3) only requires an assessment of each offeror's ability to accomplish the technical requirements of the solicitation when the tradeoff process will be used:

Technical evaluation. When tradeoffs are performed (see 15.101-1), the source selection records shall include?

(i) An assessment of each offeror?s ability to accomplish the technical requirements

If this requirement applies to LPTA, then why would it specify "when tradeoffs are performed"?

I prefer the "better safe than sorry" approach and think that it's a good idea to state that you're using the economical LPTA approach in the solicitation.

Then I don't know why we disagree. My position was that the FAR permits the approach that Vern proposed and does not require that the solicitation state anything special (other than what's required by FAR 15.101-2). Whether or not it's a good idea to announce your intent to use the Economical LPTA approach is a different issue.

I agree with the "better safe than sorry" concept of stating the intentions upfront but I don't think there's a requirment to do so.

FAR 15.102 ( states:

"When using the lowest price technically acceptable process, the following apply:

(1) The evaluation factors and significant subfactors that establish the requirements of acceptability shall be set forth in the solicitation. Solicitations shall specify that award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors....

(2) Tradeoffs are not permitted.

(3) Proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-cost/price factors.

(4) Exchanges may occur (see 15.306). "

While you could make an interpretation that (3) implies all proposals must be evaluated, I don't see that's true. (1) clearly states that award is made on the basis of lowest price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards. Linda (and I) added some reasons why evaluation of all proposals makes sense, I don't see a requirement to do so. I know it's commom practice with sealed bids when a large number are received to only examine the acceptability of the low apparent bidder and not go through all the others. I tried to do a quick search of GAO decisions and came up with nothing but I also don't have access to Westlaw. Perhaps it can produce something relevant.

I didn't say it was required; I said it was a good idea to play it safe. At least we agree on that.

However, I interpret (3) in your post as applying to all proposals. That's why I think it's a good idea to state up front that you may not evaluate all proposals.

Just my interpretation.

I ask for proposals to come in two volumes, 1. A technical volume 2. A price volume and I do not open the price volume until the technical evaluations are complete. Then I rank all the technically acceptable proposals by price from lowest to highest. Knowing all the technical proposals helps me in the following ways:

1. In my letters to unsuccessful offerors I can detail why they were not selected either they were technically acceptable and not the lowest price, or they were technically unacceptable and I can tell them where their proposal was deficient.

2. If asked for a debriefing, either in person or via a formal letter, I will have knowledge of their proposal to outline their weaknesses and inform them how to better prepare their next proposal.

3. If I receive a protest I will be prepared with the required information to answer that protest.

So, you're doing traditional LPTA.

In an LPTA source selection, there is always one and only one reason why an offeror was not selected: It was not the lowest-price technically-acceptable. Period. That's true whether or not its proposal was technically acceptable. If the offeror with the lowest price is found to be technically acceptable, why bother evaluating the others? That costs money. If a loser who was not evaluated for technical acceptability asks if it was technically acceptable, you answer: We don't know. We did not evaluate your technical proposal because even if you had been technically acceptable you would not have had the lowest price and could not have won.

I don't see any point in evaluating proposals just so you can tell losers whether and why they were or were not technically acceptable when it would not have made any difference to the outcome one way or the other. That strikes me as form over substance.

I would think that the technical evaluation has to come first. If you look at the price first, sort the offers by price and then give the proposals one-by-one to the technical evaluators to determine if it is technically-acceptable and then stop when you reach the first one may not be fair to all offers. The technically-acceptable bar may not be so clear cut or black and white. The evaluator knowing the price rank may be influenced in their technical evaluation.

So, you're doing traditional LPTA.

In an LPTA source selection, there is always one and only one reason why an offeror was not selected: It was not the lowest-price technically-acceptable. Period. That's true whether or not its proposal was technically acceptable. If the offeror with the lowest price is found to be technically acceptable, why bother evaluating the others? That costs money. If a loser who was not evaluated for technical acceptability asks if it was technically acceptable, you answer: We don't know. We did not evaluate your technical proposal because even if you had been technically acceptable you would not have had the lowest price and could not have won.

I don't see any point in evaluating proposals just so you can tell losers whether and why they were or were not technically acceptable when it would not have made any difference to the outcome one way or the other. That strikes me as form over substance.

This is my first post. We are contemplating using LPTA for a Design Build to be competed among three IDIQ contractors. We have very little time, so we have thought of opening the prices, then giving the technical package of the lowest priced proposal to the evaluation team to have them say whether he is technically acceptable. the evaluation team will not be told what the other prices are.

I note the concerns mentioned above about not opening the techanial proposals of the other contractors, but I think it is best that the evaluation team not be influenced by higher, or lower, quality proposals in grading. It's either go or no-go. Has anyone actually done this yet? If so., what was the result.

This is my first post. We are contemplating using LPTA for a Design Build to be competed among three IDIQ contractors. We have very little time, so we have thought of opening the prices, then giving the technical package of the lowest priced proposal to the evaluation team to have them say whether he is technically acceptable. the evaluation team will not be told what the other prices are.

I note the concerns mentioned above about not opening the techanial proposals of the other contractors, but I think it is best that the evaluation team not be influenced by higher, or lower, quality proposals in grading. It's either go or no-go. Has anyone actually done this yet? If so., what was the result.

I don't know if anyone has done it. A Navy attorney called me a while back to ask my opinion about the method, and I said I thought it was okay. I suspect that they might have done it, but I don't know. I know that Professor Ralph Nash thinks it's okay. In any case, in order to win a protest the protester would have to show that it was prejudiced by the agency's action. If the lowest-priced offeror is validly technically acceptable, no other firm could prove that it was prejudiced.

I don't know if anyone has done it. A Navy attorney called me a while back to ask my opinion about the method, and I said I thought it was okay. I suspect that they might have done it, but I don't know. I know that Professor Ralph Nash thinks it's okay. In any case, in order to win a protest the protester would have to show that it was prejudiced by the agency's action. If the lowest-priced offeror is validly technically acceptable, no other firm could prove that it was prejudiced.

Thanks. I'll post how it turns out.

I was recently asked a question and would like to see if anyone has a reaction to my answer, pro or con. When conducting a lowest price technically acceptable source selection (see FAR 15.101-2), if the offeror with the lowest price is technically acceptable, may the agency award to that offeror without evaluating the technical acceptability of the other offerors?

I said yes, and recommended that the solicitation announce the plan to use the procedure.

I am familiar with the language in FAR Subpart 15.3 and do not think anything therein or elsewhere in FAR bars such a procedure. I found no GAO decisions that bear on the question.

If you use Economical LPTA, what reason would one have to include solicitation language regarding "establishing a competitive range" and FPRs?

If you use Economical LPTA, what reason would one have to include solicitation language regarding "establishing a competitive range" and FPRs?

I'm presuming that price is the most important factor in your acquisition strategy. What if the lowest priced offer(s) don't meet all the technical requirements but have the potential to be correctable. I'd want the ability to be able to conduct discussions and to include them, wouldn't you?

I suppose that it depends upon what you are buying.

If you use Economical LPTA, what reason would one have to include solicitation language regarding "establishing a competitive range" and FPRs?

In an LPTA source selection you must proceed to award in two steps. In the first step, you decide which proposals are technically acceptable. In the second step you select the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest price for award. You might want to conduct discussions if the proposal with the lowest price is not technically acceptable due to some minor flaw and could easily be made technically acceptable through discussions. Of course, if you conduct discussions you must establish a competitive range, conduct discussions with all offerors within the competitive range, and solicit final proposal revisions. The competitive range would likely include all acceptable proposals with prices within competitive reach of the lowest price offeror, and the result after final proposal revisions might be different. That would add time to your process, but your process might yield lower (though not necessarily better) prices as a result.

Keep in mind, however, that if you are conducting a source selection under FAR Part 15 you do not ever have to "include" (i.e., add) language about establishing a competitive range. The standard solicitation provision at FAR 52.215-1 provides as follows in paragraph (f)(4):

(f)(4) The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror?s initial proposal should contain the offeror?s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

In an LPTA source selection you must proceed to award in two steps. In the first step, you decide which proposals are technically acceptable. In the second step you select the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest price for award. You might want to conduct discussions if the proposal with the lowest price is not technically acceptable due to some minor flaw and could easily be made technically acceptable through discussions. Of course, if you conduct discussions you must establish a competitive range, conduct discussions with all offerors within the competitive range, and solicit final proposal revisions. The competitive range would likely include all acceptable proposals with prices within competitive reach of the lowest price offeror, and the result after final proposal revisions might be different. That would add time to your process, but your process might yield lower (though not necessarily better) prices as a result.

Keep in mind, however, that if you are conducting a source selection under FAR Part 15 you do not ever have to "include" (i.e., add) language about establishing a competitive range. The standard solicitation provision at FAR 52.215-1 provides as follows in paragraph (f)(4):etc...

Vern, do you think that we may have to also include other proposals in the competitive range which had some potentially fixable deficiencies but were within a competitive price range of the lowest priced (but also deficient) proposal?

I would think that if you include

1. the lowest priced but deficient proposal and

2. Technically acceptable proposals that are higher priced than a proposal that also has minor deficiencies,

...it would also be prudent to include such proposal(s).

I suppose that we could cut off the competitive range at a proposal that is technically acceptable, depending upon the circumstances.

As for extra effort, the government would have already evaluated those proposals during the process of determining a competitive price range, as you described above.

So, in effect, the competitive range would include all proposals within a theoretically competitive price range that were either technically acceptable or deemed capable of becoming technically acceptable.

I'm saying this from the theoretical perspective of a firm that might protest if we include conforming proposals that are higher priced than "mine" as well as lower cost proposals with similar deficiencies as "mine".

What do you think?

Include whomever you like. Include everybody if you are scared of protests.

Include whomever you like. Include everybody if you are scared of protests.

Bottom line in the decisions to...

1. Use the LPTA method and

2. To allow the opportunity to conduct discussions

...depend upon your ultimate goal as a KO or project delivery team. Is it...

1. To get the "best" deal, employing a reasonable amount of effort? Or is it

2. Just to make an award using the least amount of effort possible?

For me as a professional and as a fellow taxpayer, I certainly would hope that the acquisition professionals out there, especially contracting officers leading the process, would choose to get the best deal for the taxpayer as well as the customer.

So, find a way to streamline the process for everyone's benefit, the PDT, the industry and the taxpayer.

If you allow yourself some flexibility, you don't have to conduct discussions if it will cost more to do so than the expected benefit or take an unacceptable amount of time to do it.

But at least don't box yourself into a corner by not allowing yourself the opportunity to get a better deal, if it is worth the effort and if there is a possibility that the lowest-priced technically acceptable offer is substantially higher than ?ou could have achieved with a little more effort.

I think that is one reason that the FAR rewrite team brought the LPTA method under the "best value spectrum" in the 1996 FAR 15 rewrite.

In our organization, the source selection process is reimbursable to the particular acquisition program being served. So, we'd want to weigh the cost of the source selection, task order selection, etc. against the benefit to be gained. But I always try to keep the taxpayer, the customer and industry in mind.

After all, what does "the best interest of the government" really mean? Not just the amount of work involved or the instant program but in the best overall interest to all concerned including the taxpayer.

Especially in this day and age where deficits are running into the TRILLIONS of dollars!!

This is my first post. We are contemplating using LPTA for a Design Build to be competed among three IDIQ contractors. We have very little time, so we have thought of opening the prices, then giving the technical package of the lowest priced proposal to the evaluation team to have them say whether he is technically acceptable. the evaluation team will not be told what the other prices are.

I note the concerns mentioned above about not opening the techanial proposals of the other contractors, but I think it is best that the evaluation team not be influenced by higher, or lower, quality proposals in grading. It's either go or no-go. Has anyone actually done this yet? If so., what was the result.

Marv, I believe your approach is fine. However, let me add a suggestion. If you must send your source selection decision to a higher level for approval, I suggest you check with someone at the higher level to assure they support your approach. I have run across instances where the HQ did not like the approach you describe.

In reference to a "streamlined" LPTA process, it appears the Army uses it. The Army's Mission and Installation Contracting Command has a Source Selection Guide Book at: http://www.acc.army.mil/micc/micc-guides.html

The Army guide states: "An option the KO may consider when using a LPTA approach is to stipulate in the solicitation that the government reserves the right to evaluate the lowest priced proposal first and if it is acceptable then make award to that offeror. In the event that the lowest price proposal is not acceptable, then the second lowest proposed price proposal is evaluated and if acceptable then award to it, and so on. However the success of this approach is dependant upon the quantity and quality of proposals received. This approach can provide the KO tremendous flexibility in streamlining the evaluation process."

The advantages of the process are apparent to all but lifelong PWACs.

See matter of Gold Cross Safety Corporation, B296099, here: http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/296099.pdf. While not directly on-point, in Gold Cross the GAO states:

"?Since Gold Cross could not receive the award due to its unreasonable price, the results of any technical evaluation the agency may have subsequently performed were immaterial; even if Gold Cross? technical submission received the highest possible rating, it could not receive the award due to its unreasonable price."

Substitute the phrase "because there was a lower-priced, technically-acceptable offeror" for the phrase "due to its unreasonably price," and viola. There, as here, a technical evaluation would be "immaterial."

Thoughts?

See matter of Gold Cross Safety Corporation, B296099, here: http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/296099.pdf. While not directly on-point, in Gold Cross the GAO states:

"?Since Gold Cross could not receive the award due to its unreasonable price, the results of any technical evaluation the agency may have subsequently performed were immaterial; even if Gold Cross? technical submission received the highest possible rating, it could not receive the award due to its unreasonable price."

Substitute the phrase "because there was a lower-priced, technically-acceptable offeror" for the phrase "due to its unreasonably price," and viola. There, as here, a technical evaluation would be "immaterial."

Thoughts?

Be careful, the Gold Cross case is not on point for a couple of reasons. First, it involves a best value source selection. This thread is dealing with a source selection made to the lowest priced, technically acceptable offer. Second, in Gold Cross, it is significant that the protestor's price was 8 to 20 times higher than other prices and the Government estimate. In the case of LPTA, the variance in prices among offers is irrelevant so long as you award to the technically acceptable offer with the lowest price.

Be careful, the Gold Cross case is not on point for a couple of reasons. First, it involves a best value source selection. This thread is dealing with a source selection made to the lowest priced, technically acceptable offer. Second, in Gold Cross, it is significant that the protestor's price was 8 to 20 times higher than other prices and the Government estimate. In the case of LPTA, the variance in prices among offers is irrelevant so long as you award to the technically acceptable offer with the lowest price.

Actually, an LPTA procurement is part of the best value continuum. I believe the distinction you were trying to make is a Tradeoff Process (FAR 15.101-1) vs LPTA (FAR 15.101-2).

I think GeoJeff was trying to point out what he views to be a general principle that applies to both types of procurements. Specifically, an offeror's price may be so high that it renders the proposal ineligible for award regardless of the technical merit or rating of the offer. In a tradeoff procurement, that will happen if, as GAO says, the "quoted price [is] too high in an absolute sense." In an LPTA that will happen if another technically acceptable proposal offers a lower price.

Quote

Actually, an LPTA procurement is part of the best value continuum. I believe the distinction you were trying to make is a Tradeoff Process (FAR 15.101-1) vs LPTA (FAR 15.101-2).

Unquote

In its decision, the GAO described the basis of award as "best value". Typically, a source selection using factors in addition to cost or price is called "best value".

Quote

I think GeoJeff was trying to point out what he views to be a general principle that applies to both types of procurements. Specifically, an offeror's price may be so high that it renders the proposal ineligible for award regardless of the technical merit or rating of the offer. In a tradeoff procurement, that will happen if, as GAO says, the "quoted price [is] too high in an absolute sense." In an LPTA that will happen if another technically acceptable proposal offers a lower price.

Unquote

The thread commenced with this question: "When conducting a lowest price technically acceptable source selection (see FAR 15.101-2), if the offeror with the lowest price is technically acceptable, may the agency award to that offeror without evaluating the technical acceptability of the other offerors?". The Gold Cross case involved an extraordinarily large price differential, and it did not address whether or not the contracting officer is obligated to perform a technical evaluation of all offers. Thus, I don't think it offers support for a "Yes" answer to the initial question.

Although the second part of LPTA "Technically Acceptable" was discussed in some detail here, not much was said about the "Low Priced".

This sounds simple but in a recent procurement I witnessed, the price part of the offerors proposals included the following price factors:

1. Percentage Mark-up Rates

2. Mark up Rates Elements

3. Overtime Rate

4. Conversion Rate

5. Prices for Other Services

This was a non-personal services IDIQ contracting for administrative support services. After determining who was technically acceptable, the CO made an award decision based only on the Percentage Mark-up Rates. The problem came during the debriefing when the CO stated only the Mark-up rate was used to determine the low priced offeror and he did not evaluate the other price related factors contained in the RFP.

A protest soon followed stating he did not substantiate the selected offeror was actually the low offeror. To make it worse the CO would not release the base labor rates of the selected offeror to the unsuccessful offeror.

For this procurement, perhaps LPTA was not the correct choice. I just wanted to address the low price side of this issue and see if anyone had any comments.

buddyandme,

At the risk of moving the discussion off point, I would suggest that the "price" in the LPTA must be the price the government is likely to experience under the contract (typically including all options likely to be exercised). There are a ton of cases on point, but consider SmithKline Beecham Corp., B-283939, Jan. 27, 2000 (?The Competition in Contracting Act requires that agencies consider the cost to the government in evaluating competitive proposals. While it is up to the agency to decide upon an appropriate and reasonable method for proposal evaluation, it may not use an evaluation method that produces a misleading result. Such method must include some reasonable basis for evaluating or comparing the relative costs of proposals, so as to establish whether one offeror?s proposal would be more or less costly than another?s.? (citations omitted)); Environmental Technologies Group, Inc., B-236813.2, Dec. 20, 1989, 89-2 CPD ? 573 (agency may not aggregate every quantity range (or quantity band) in coming up with the evaluated price; rather, actual quantity needed by the agency must be used); John C. Grimberg Co., B-284013, Feb. 2, 2000 (agency cannot sum alternates); Ahern & Associates, Inc., B-254907.4, Mar. 31, 1994, 94-1 CPD ? 236 (in dealing with alternatives, construing ambiguous RFP in light of the law??since the evaluation of bids must be based on what the actual likely cost to the government will be and the cost of each element of work may be taken into account only once??to ?require award to be based on the lowest total evaluated price for the actual work to be performed.?).

While this doesn't preclude using a number of price-related subfactors, there must be a single evaluated price that is used for purposes of any trades, and there must be a single evaluated price (that reflected the government's likely experience over the life of the contract) that represents the "price" in an LPTA.

For this procurement, perhaps LPTA was not the correct choice. I just wanted to address the low price side of this issue and see if anyone had any comments.

Whether you are using the LPTA Process or the Tradeoff Process (i.e. Best Value), you must evaluate price. To do so, you must consider all the price factors identified in the solicitation. In your case, if the solicitation did in fact announce that the price evaluation would consider 5 price subfactors, the contracting officer is obligated to consider them whether using LPTA or BV to make the award decision. As Monsieur Jacques has stated, the factors roll up into a single evaluated price reflecting the likely dollar outcome of the contract.

I suspect Don Acquisition's post referencing FAR 15.305 answers the mail. Consider Al Ghanim Combined Group Co. Gen. Trad. & Cont. W.L.L. v. U.S., 56 Fed.Cl. 502, 519 (2003) (pointing out that FAR ? 15.305(a)(3)'s requirement to assess "each offeror's ability to accomplish the technical requirements" does not apply to LPTAs) (dicta). Absent the QC function already discussed, it seems of limited or no value-added to require evaluating whether an offer higher in price than an acceptable proposal is acceptable, and I see nothing in the FAR requiring it. Even when conducting discussions, FAR 15.305©(1) & (2) call for "evaluating all proposals in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)." It doesn't call for evaluating all proposals (full stop), but doing so IAW FAR 15.305(a). FAR 15.305(a), of course, includes 15.305(a)(3), which expressly does not require a technical evaluation unless tradeoffs are performed.

I'm not suggesting an economical LPTA is the only or best way, but it seems permissible. For instance, it (or any LPTA) may not be best suited for cost-reimbursement contracts. If the evaluation includes cost realism or any other price adjustment, the evaluation needs to keep that it mind. While I don't see how a higher priced offeror could be prejudiced, the government would have a harder time showing the protester is technically unacceptable. That said, all else being equal, fewer evaluations would hopefully result in better evaluations.

I do have a concern with using this approach when discussions are likely. An offeror is free to change any aspect of its proposal at FPR, including its price. If discussions are limited to the low offerors whose proposals are either acceptable or reasonable susceptible of being made acceptable, what happens if all the offerors found technically acceptable after discussions raise their prices, such that the lowest priced technically acceptable offeror remaining in the competitive range is now higher in price than an offeror previously excluded? While this may not be likely, as the offeror acceptable before discussions is less likely to change its price, it is a concern.

sorry about resurrecting an old discussion, but this has some good points and would like to pose this question.

We are currently in the process of looking at the potential pros and cons for utilizing this method. ( I am providing background and advise to the KO, not the KO nor in their chain)

We are considering utilizng an LPTA for a requirement ( Support services) and the contract type will be CPFF. ( to use LPTA for LOE services is another discussion, thanks)

In our discussions with Legal, it has been identified that IAW FAR 15.404-1(d)(2) Cost realism analyses shall be performed on cost-reimbursement contracts to determine the probable cost of performance for each offeror.

The KO stance is that we don't have to evaluate each offeror and we can award to the the lowest priced offeror if they are technically acceptable.

The Attorneys stance is that in a cost environment, you have to evaluate all offerors for technical acceptability and then do cost realism based upon the above citation for each offeror based upon the above cite.

( Legal has no issue in a FP environment with this methodology)

I am tending to agree with the attorney, however want to make sure I am not missing anything. ( Caveat - I have utilized this methodologyseveral times without much success (FFP), the lowest offeror(s) were never technically acceptable, so ended up evaluating them all, so my support of this method is limited, good in theory, so so in practice)

What are y'alls thoughts on doing economical LPTA on a cost contract in light of FAR 15.404-1(d)(2)

Thanks appreciate any and all comments

The approach certainly seems plausible, though I have no personal experience with it. I would want to be fairly certain that the evaluation team would be able to determine the government's adjusted realistic price without entering into discussions.

Whether it will likely result in best value depends on your specific facts and circumstances. Use of the LPTA technique for the award of cost reimbursement contracts (whether using this "economical" approach of not) seems to put a great deal of emphasis of an aspect of the proposal where the government may have the least confidence. That said, sometimes the government isn't particularly confident about any of the other traditional evaluation areas (e.g., technical proposals amounting to "liar's contests," horrible inter-rater reliability when evaluating past performance).

You certainly know what the two protest allegations are going to be: (1) The government should have made a greater upward adjustment of the apparent successful offeror's proposed price in arriving at an evaluated price; and (2) the awardee should have been determined to be technically unacceptable. It would seem at least one traditional bid protest defense would no longer be available: It would be speculative to say that the protester is not next in line for award when the offer who appears to be next in line may not be if its price is unrealistically low, but the only offeror for which you have conducted a price realism evaluation is the apparent successful offeror.

I would encourage you to be very clear in your mind, clear with the team, and clear in the solicitation as to how discussions will be handled. It has been my experience that, even when the government truly wants to award without discussions, no offer is awardable based on initial proposals.

I think you would have to evaluate the cost realism of each offeror. Then, you would evaluate the technical acceptability of the offers starting with the one proposing the lowest probable cost plus fee. If it were technically acceptable, then you'd be done. There would be no need to determine the technical acceptability of other offers.

I agree with airborne373's attorneys, with one proviso: Anyone who uses LPTA to award a cost-reimbursement contract is an idiot or an ass, should lose any warrant they have, should have their head shaved and their buttons cut off in front of a mob, should have their shoes set on fire, and should never, ever be allowed within 1,000 miles of another government contracting office, which probably means that they'll have to leave the country. And if you need me to explain why, you are a danger to national security.

Don,

"Cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror's proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the WORK TO BE PERFORMED; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror's technical proposal." FAR 15.404-1(d)(1). Unless the criteria being evaluated under technical acceptability somehow do not relate to "the work to be performed," I'm not sure I see the point in conducting a cost realism analysis of a proposal that may not be technically acceptable. It seems to put the cart in front of the horse.

Thanks all,

And yes I have been called an idiot and an ass but never a threat to national security. ( maybe it was becauses exes were calling me that )

You're only a threat to national security if you don't understand why LPTA for a cost-reimbursement contract is stupid.

Do you not understand? Say it ain't so, Airborne Thunder. Tell me you wouldn't do it even at gunpoint.

Let's just say sometimes lesson you learn that stick with you are the ones that ....

LPTA is a method. Sometimes the right one sometimes not.

Experience is a great teacher.

Would I do it today. No

Would I do it today. No.

Airborne! I knew it.