Sam101

This wifcon thread is a good supplement to this thread: So, the way I see it, there are 2 instances of price reasonableness analysis when a competitive range is formed: One for the competitive range formation, and one during trade-off documentation.

But it's like that by default, isn't it? Even if the solicitation does not state that unacceptable offerors are not eligible for award, the definition of unacceptable (and probably marginal as well) in the solicitation likely means the same thing as if the solicitation does state that unacceptable offerors are not eligible for award, since the government cannot award to an unacceptable offeror (an offeror who cannot meet the critical requirements of the SOW, at least based on their proposal) by default, right?

Emphasis added. Right, so, the way I see it, a firm being ineligible for award CAN become eligible AFTER discussions. And you need to consider pricing when forming a competitive range, so that's why this is true: When an offeror is unacceptable (un-awardable), the government must consider their price for the green text but not the red text: 1) When determining competitive range. 2) When documenting trade-off analysis. 3) When determining price reasonableness.

So, in accordance with FAR 15.503(a)(1) Preaward notices of exclusion from competitive range. The contracting officer shall notify offerors promptly in writing when their proposals are excluded from the competitive range or otherwise eliminated from the competition. The notice shall state the basis for the determination and that a proposal revision will not be considered. Why is FAR 15.503(a)(1) titled "Preaward notices of exclusion from competitive range" when or otherwise eliminated from the competition means eliminated from competition even if a competitive range is not established? Such as an unacceptable rating but the government does not form a competitive range?

True.

That's what I thought too, but see Six3 Systems, Inc. - B-405942.4,B-405942.8: Emphasis added. But, actually, now that I'm re-reading the above quote from Six3 Systems, Inc. - B-405942.4,B-405942.8, I just realized that it's not about the solicitation's "statement that a proposal must meet the solicitation requirements to be considered for award adequately advised offerors that a rating of marginal may render a proposal ineligible for award", but rather the definition of marginal AND that statement COMBINED. But this is what bugs me about GAO cases, they confuse the reader... why couldn't they just simply state that the solicitation's definition of a marginal rating (which encompassed a failure to clearly meet solicitation requirements) ALONE makes it so that the government doesn't have to include the marginal offeror in the trade-off process? If the definition of marginal being un-awardable alone is enough, then this is true regardless of whether the solicitation has the above green statement: When an offeror is unacceptable (un-awardable), by the definition of Marginal OR Unacceptable in the RFP, the government must consider their price for the green text but not the red text: 1) When determining competitive range. 2) When documenting trade-off analysis. 3) When determining price reasonableness.

Thank you all for walking me through this... but just so I'm clear, is this correct?: When an offeror is unacceptable (un-awardable), and the solicitation explicitly states that any rating below Acceptable is not eligible for award, the government must consider their price for the green text but not the red text: 1) When determining competitive range. 2) When documenting trade-off analysis. 3) When determining price reasonableness. When an offeror is unacceptable (un-awardable), and the solicitation DOES NOT explicitly state that any rating below Acceptable is not eligible for award, the government must consider their price for the green text but not the red text: 1) When determining competitive range. 2) When documenting trade-off analysis. 3) When determining price reasonableness.

The way I see it there are three instances where the government considers competing offerors' prices: 1) When determining competitive range. 2) When documenting trade-off analysis. 3) When determining price reasonableness. When an offeror does not meet all requirements of the SOW, it doesn't hurt to consider their price for competitive range and trade-off purposes, but it may not make sense for price reasonableness purposes. The cases cited so far in this thread talk about competitive range and trade-off, but not price reasonableness.

On a related note, regarding competitive range determinations, see Addx Corporation B-417804; B-417804.2; B-417804.3, https://www.gao.gov/assets/b-417804.pdf. Addx Corporation rated marginal but GAO still said that the government should have considered Addx Corporation's price during the competitive range determination. If the government states in RFP that "offerors who rate below Acceptable may not be considered for award and their price will not be evaluated", but then when performing the competitive range determination, the government "evaluates" a marginal offeror's price, by "considering" their price for competitive range determination purposes, how is that "offerors who rate below Acceptable may not be considered for award and their price will not be evaluated"?... Because the government is now evaluating the marginal offeror's price even though they said they wouldn't? I don't know if the solicitation in Addx Corporation B-417804; B-417804.2; B-417804.3 that "offerors who rate below Acceptable may not be considered for award and their price will not be evaluated". It probably should have, although I'm not sure if GAO differentiates "competitive range determination price comparison" and price analysis for price reasonableness purposes prior to making an award.

And see this case: https://www.gao.gov/assets/830/826402.pdf The government properly made award to a marginally rated offeror. I wonder how the price reasonableness determination looked like for this award.

Right, so the reader will assume (or not care and not assume anything) that the prices are for similar quality services, or items.

Yes, that makes sense, in the context of the marginal rating being un-awardable, but in the context of the marginal rating being still awardable, it's confusing.

Vern had comments on this related thread: Assuming that Marginal is not ineligible for award, but still bad, leaving any mention of non-price ratings out of the price reasonable analysis might make the reader think that all compared prices are of not bad non-price ratings... but I don't know if that matters for price reasonableness purposes. So that's what I'm asking about.

Assuming a solicitation says that it's OK to award to a marginally rated offeror, then the price reasonableness analysis can look like this: Offeror A: $750,000.00 Offeror B: $789,000.00 Offeror C: $775,000.00 Independent Government Estimate (IGE): $783,000.00. Choice 1: Apparent awardee's, Offeror B's price is reasonable, their price is close enough to the IGE, and other offers received are lower than offeror B's, but not too much lower, and by the way, Offeror C was rated marginal. Choice 2: Apparent awardee's, Offeror B's price is reasonable, their price is close enough to the IGE, and other offers received are lower than offeror B's, but not too much lower. Which way is more proper? Choice 1 or Choice 2? I don't think I ever mentioned non-price ratings in a price reasonableness determination... but is there a good reason to include the fact that one or more offerors' prices whose price you're comparing the apparent awardee's price to rated marginal for a nonprice factor in a price reasonableness determination? Or does it not matter?

Right, in the instant case of Six3 Systems, Inc. - B-405942.4; B-405942.8, the marginally rated offeror was properly not included in the trade-off analysis, and I assume also was not included in the price comparison with other offers received for price reasonableness purposes. I guess another way of phrasing my question is: When is it proper to not include an offeror's price in the price comparison with other offers received for price reasonableness purposes? Only when they are not included in the trade-off analysis?