ndean Posted August 14, 2012 Report Share Posted August 14, 2012 When conducting a LPTA source selection are you required to review the technical and OCI proposal for every offeror or only the offeror with the Lowest Price? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcarver Posted August 14, 2012 Report Share Posted August 14, 2012 Lowest Price Technically Acceptable. How do you know if they are the lowest price if you don't know they are technically acceptable? What does your source selection plan say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardinalChange Posted August 14, 2012 Report Share Posted August 14, 2012 To start with the lowest priced proposal and work up until you find a technically acceptable one (including OCI considerations) seems logical and efficient. I do not believe that it would be contraindicated by the FAR. This was discussed in this forum a while back: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?showtopic=103&hl=lpta&fromsearch=1 where it was referred to as "Economical LPTA." I should note that recently, the Commander of the US Army Mission and Installation Contracting Command determined that it should not be utilized. You would need to check your agency's policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C Culham Posted August 14, 2012 Report Share Posted August 14, 2012 Does this help answer your question...... FAR 15.101-2 Lowest price technically acceptable source selection process. (a) The lowest price technically acceptable source selection process is appropriate when best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price. ( 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. If the contracting officer documents the file pursuant to 15.304©(3)(iii), past performance need not be an evaluation factor in lowest price technically acceptable source selections. If the contracting officer elects to consider past performance as an evaluation factor, it shall be evaluated in accordance with . However, the comparative assessment in (a)(2)(i) does not apply. If the contracting officer determines that a small business’ past performance is not acceptable, the matter shall be referred to the Small Business Administration for a Certificate of Competency determination, in accordance with the procedures contained in and ). (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 <a href="https://www.acquisition.gov/far/current/html/Subpart%2015_3.html#wp1088919">15.306). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted August 14, 2012 Report Share Posted August 14, 2012 I should note that recently, the Commander of the US Army Mission and Installation Contracting Command determined that it should not be utilized. You would need to check your agency's policies. Was that policy issued in writing? If so, can you give us any more details so that we can find it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardinalChange Posted August 14, 2012 Report Share Posted August 14, 2012 Issued as a handwritten note by the CG, MICC on a copy of a solicitation in which the Contracting Office outlined just such an evaluation process (the language was highlighted and marked "Prohibited"). The pdf copy of this was distributed by email from HQ, MICC to the Directors of all MICC offices. Why? The handwritten note states that this process is "disingenuous on our part" and "sets up a screen." I don't see anything wrong with doing it. The only potential downside is if one were to receive debriefing requests - what can you tell them about their strengths and/or weaknesses if you haven't evaluated them? If I were an unsuccessful offeror, I would want to know if I hit the mark or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boof Posted August 14, 2012 Report Share Posted August 14, 2012 LPTA should not have strengths and Weaknesses. Each evaluaton element should be acceptable or unacceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted August 14, 2012 Report Share Posted August 14, 2012 Issued as a handwritten note by the CG, MICC on a copy of a solicitation in which the Contracting Office outlined just such an evaluation process (the language was highlighted and marked "Prohibited"). The pdf copy of this was distributed by email from HQ, MICC to the Directors of all MICC offices. Why? The handwritten note states that this process is "disingenuous on our part" and "sets up a screen." I don't see anything wrong with doing it. The only potential downside is if one were to receive debriefing requests - what can you tell them about their strengths and/or weaknesses if you haven't evaluated them? If I were an unsuccessful offeror, I would want to know if I hit the mark or not. Commanding generals should stick to what they know, and you can say I said that. This is why I won't teach source selection anymore. There is no point in trying to teach a pig to sing. No wonder DOD wastes so much time and money. As for debriefings, just tell the losers the truth: it was an LPTA acquisition and one offeror was technically acceptable and had the lowest price. Once we knew who that was it didn't matter to us if anyone else was technically acceptable, so we didn't bother reading the other proposals. Game over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.gif)
Recommended Posts