Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

lost but found

Evaluation of all received quotes under SAP procedures

Recommended Posts

Just want to start off saying thanks to all the members for contributing to these forums.

As the title says, Do all quotes received under SAP procedures have to be evaluated? The combo stated award will be made to the lowest price techincally acceptable.

Scenario: A combo was issued and posted to FBO. Thirteen quotes were received.

Can you simply look at the lowest three quotes or do you have to have technical acceptance/rejection for all quotes?

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the solicitation state that all offers were going to be evaluated?

Under LPTA procedures the only value added to evaluating higher-priced proposals is the ability to make the determination of fair and reasonable price based on competition, and we only need technically acceptable proposals to accomplish that. We do not need past performance information, small business type, or offeror representations and certifications to accomplish that determination.

Don - This is a leadership issue. The Army evaluates all proposals solicited under FAR Part 15, including LPTA, because some offerors complained to the Government that they spent time and effort preparing proposals and they wanted their proposals looked at. The Army has new Generals now and the workforce is asking them to change that policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FAR 13.106-2( a )( 3 ) says "All quotations of offers shall be considered." Is there a difference between evaluated and considered?

The original posting concerns FAR Part 13, not FAR Part 15. But 13.106-3( d ) references FAR 15.503( b )( 2 ) for post-award debriefings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the lowest-priced quote were technically acceptable, why would you bother evaluating the others?

Don,

This is my exact question. As you can imagine, the technical office is not happy about reviewing 13 quotes.

We have a CO who is requiring technical's on all quotes. I do not agree, but I cannot find the verbiage to argue otherwise. I spent several hours this morning reading GAO cases and cannot find one that fits my situtation.

The "new to us" CO has an extensive background in source selection programs. I am just trying to back up the argument before I create one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FAR 13.106-2( a )( 3 ) says "All quotations of offers shall be considered." Is there a difference between evaluated and considered?

The original posting concerns FAR Part 13, not FAR Part 15. But 13.106-3( d ) references FAR 15.503( b )( 2 ) for post-award debriefings.

Good question. I was trying to answer that myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lost but found,

In a FAR part 15 source selection, the requirement to evaluate every offeror's ability to accomplish the technical requirements only applies when tradeoffs are performed. See FAR 15.305(a)(3):

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; and

    (ii) A summary, matrix, or quantitative ranking, along with appropriate supporting narrative, of each technical proposal using the evaluation factors.

FAR 13.003(g) allows for the use of any combination of procedures in parts 13, 14, 15. As such, a procedure that is allowable under FAR part 15 (i.e., the LPTA evaluation procedure you proposed) is allowable under FAR part 13.

Regarding FAR 13.106-2( a )( 3 ), you did consider other quotes. You looked at the prices and compared them to each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See FAR 13.106-2(a)(3): "All quotations or offers shall be considered (see paragraph ( b ) of this subsection)." Emphasis added.

Paragraph ( b ) is labeled, "Evaluation procedures." Nothing in paragraph ( b ) says you can limit the evaluation to the lowest three quotes or that you don't have to consider all proposals. Trying to make a distinction between consider and evaluate is a fool's errand.

Now, let's think this through: If the RFQ or RFP expressly stated that award would be made on an LPTA basis, then in my opinion it would be reasonable to consider all prices and consider technical acceptability starting with the lowest priced quote or offer. If the lowest is technically acceptable, then I think you could justify not bothering to look at the other technical proposals. What would be the point? Who would be prejudiced?

If the RFQ or RFP did not say that award would go to the LPTA quote or proposal, then you would have a problem if challenged for failing to consider all technical proposals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don,

I see where you are going with FAR 15.305(a)(3).

If you see Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection Process

15.101-2( B)(3)

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

Would all the offers need to be considered "Acceptable / Non-Acceptable"?

Maybe in the future we should re-word the solicitation to read something like:

The award will be made to the lowest priced offer whose offer meets the requirements of the solicitation. Offers above the lowest price will only be evaluated if the lowest offer fails to meet these requirements.

Thoughts?

This is supposed to be simplified aquisition. Requirements to evaluate all offers just delays the process, sometimes by several days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vern,

I think the answer may be in

13.106-2(b ) (4)(i)

(i) After preliminary consideration of all quotations or offers, identify from all quotations or offers received one that is suitable to the user, such as the lowest priced brand name product, and quickly screen all lower priced quotations or offers based on readily discernible value indicators, such as past performance, warranty conditions, and maintenance availability;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you conduct your acquisition using a method that permits electronic response to the solicitation? If not, FAR 13.106-2( b )( 4 )( i ) doesn't cover you.

As others have said, you considered all quotations by ranking them in term of price, lowest to highest. Starting with the lowest price, you now need to find one that is technically acceptable. That's LPTA.

The key point for your contracting officer -- you're in FAR 15.101-2 -- well, yes, I suppose FAR Subpart 15.3 does have some applicability, but FAR 15.101-2 controls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lost but found:

FAR 13.106-2( b )(4) applies when electronic responses are permitted. Moreover, it does not seem to apply if you require unique technical submissions. Does that sound like what you're doing?

And again, does your solicitation say you're going to award based on LPTA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this GAO case the agency included specific language in the solicitation describing how they would approach the LPTA evaluation. GAO didn't raise any issues with the approach of starting technical evaluations with the lowest priced proposal first. The safe bet would be to include that language in future solicitations if you indeed want to follow that approach. There are other issues raised by boricua when you follow this approach but as long as you are following what you said in your solicitation you'll be fine.

See B-407947... "The RFP informed offerors that award would be made on a lowest-priced technically acceptable basis considering the following three factors: technical, past performance, and price. RFP at 71-72. In this regard, the RFP established that the agency would first evaluate offerors’ prices, and then evaluate the apparent lowest-priced proposal for acceptability under the technical and past performance factors. If the lowest-price offeror was evaluated as unacceptable, the agency would then consider the acceptability of the next lowest-price offeror, continuing this process as necessary. Id. at 72."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lost but found:

FAR 13.106-2( b )(4) applies when electronic responses are permitted. Moreover, it does not seem to apply if you require unique technical submissions. Does that sound like what you're doing?

And again, does your solicitation say you're going to award based on LPTA?

Vern,

I did not find a definition of "electronic response", but yes email quotes were allowed.

Yes, it says the award would be based on lowest price technically acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don,

I see where you are going with FAR 15.305(a)(3).

If you see Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection Process

15.101-2( B)(3)

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

Would all the offers need to be considered "Acceptable / Non-Acceptable"?

Maybe in the future we should re-word the solicitation to read something like:

The award will be made to the lowest priced offer whose offer meets the requirements of the solicitation. Offers above the lowest price will only be evaluated if the lowest offer fails to meet these requirements.

Thoughts?

This is supposed to be simplified aquisition. Requirements to evaluate all offers just delays the process, sometimes by several days.

If you read FAR 15.101-2( b )(3) as requiring an evaluation of technical acceptability for all proposals received, it would render meaningless the qualification "When tradeoffs are performed..." at FAR 15.305( a )(3). That suggests an incorrect interpretation of FAR 15.101-2( b )(3).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should strive to minimize the administrative costs while maintaining fairness in the process and promoting competition. Tell the offerors how they will be evaluated and evaluate exactly as you said you would.

Sometimes determining price fair and reasonable becomes difficult if the apparent-winner offered price is too low, so make sure the evaluation criteria leaves no doubt that the apparent-winner undrstands the requirements.

Challenge local interpretations that raise the procurement cost without a corresponding return on investment.

And go read your old documents and laugh at the way you used to write your documents...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "new to us" CO has an extensive background in source selection programs. I am just trying to back up the argument before I create one.

He just doesn't understand what the "S" in SAP stands for.

I've seen it all to often....experienced COs telling others all these complicated things they must do. When in fact the rules are much simpler and the 'experienced CO' can't differentiate between their experiences and the current situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×