Ray L. Savoy

@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?

I have an noncomplex SOW that is FFP over $5.5M. I am considering the use of comparative analysis. The program office wants the two technical factor we defined to be equal in weight. I'm being asked how we will do a trade-off selection. My understanding and reply was the government is finding the best value using comparative analysis to select the contractor that is best suited and provides the best value, considering the evaluation factors in this Notice to Fair Opportunity. The Government may not make an award at a significantly higher overall price to achieve a marginal increase in superior technical capability. Best value evaluation is, in and of itself, a subjective assessment by the Government of the proposed solution that provides the optimal results to the Government. The Government may conduct a tradeoff analysis if appropriate that involves the assessment of benefits of superior proposal features (i.e., benefits clearly attributable to increased productivity, increased probability of successful task order performance, and unique and innovative approaches or capabilities) versus the total price. This may result in a proposal being awarded other than the highest technically-rated Offeror, or other than the lowest price Proposal, that is superior in the technical solution that merits a higher price. Does anyone have questions or see a concern for this as written? Has anyone had success in using technical factors that are equal in weight?

Thank you @C Culham and @Don Mansfield. Your second posts identified the references to assist me in making a business decision to essentially not included it in commercial items.

@C Culham, thank you for the reference, there was good conversation in there. I could not tell if the provision is intended for commercial or non-commercial. There are plenty of professional services that are commercial where someone could think this provision may be applicable. Is the provision applicable for fixed price (commercial) services when the majority of the work is for bona fide professional employees at the IDIQ (over $700K)? @Don Mansfield, clause was a faux pas on my part and I made the edits in the post to correct it to reflect provision (thanks). Is the provision applicable for fixed price (commercial) services when the majority of the work is for bona fide professional employees at the IDIQ (over $700K)?

Hello fellow professionals, I am looking for assistance on the "applicability" of provision 52.222-46 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees. The first thing I did was look at the matrix which says for Fix Price Services (this is the scenario we will use here) it is "Required when Applicable" (A) as prescribed in FAR Part 22.1103. FAR Part 22.1103 says "All professional employees shall be compensated fairly and properly. Accordingly, the Contracting Officer shall insert the provision at 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, in solicitations for negotiated service contracts". My understanding is that for procurements being re-competed for professional services (this is the scenario we will use here) to establish a new contract "C" or "D" under FAR Part 15 it is required. When using FAR Part 16.505 the notice of fair Opportunity the order CO is not in the business of evaluating "cost elements" for such requirements. Further, negotiated procedures is under FAR Part 15 and those procedures for soliciting a re-competed "C" or "D" type of acquisition vehicle. In short, the debate in my office is if establishing a FAR Part 15 "C" or "D" type vehicle being re-competed if the provision is applicable, and under FAR Part 16 is the clause N/A. Is there a definite use when the provision is applicable (and is not) for this type of acquisition under these FAR parts?