Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs
Sign in to follow this  
thecontractingguy

FAR Part 15 Procurement - Weighted Evaluation Factors

Recommended Posts

How can you make the following work: When combined, technical approach and past performance is approximately equal to price.

 

I've drawn this up a few times and I am not seeing how this works. Example

Company A ranks #2 for PP and TA and #2 for Price. - If you pick Company A then you give more importance to PP and TA.

Company B ranks #3 for PP and TA and #1 for Price. - If you pick Company B then you give more importance to Price

If relevances are approximately equal, how do you work this example?

Any insight on this would be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are the selecting official, you select the offer that provides the greatest value to the Government.  If you think that Company A's offer provides better value (based on past performance) and you're willing to pay the higher cost associated with it, then pick Company A.  If you think Company B's offer provides the best value (based on price), and you are satisfied with whatever risk is associated with that firm's past performance, then you select Company B.

You decide.

It's easy.

You err if you think this is an algorithm where the inputs you describe will dictate an outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weighting?  Where does that word come from?  What requires weighting?

Oh, you mean declaring in a solicitation the relative importance of the evaluation factors?  This is required for FAR Subpart 15.3 source selections and for FAR 16.505 fair opportunity considerations over $5.5 Milion, but it isn't required for FAR Subpart 8.4 schedule purchases or FAR Part 13 simplified acquisitions or FAR 16.505 fair opportunity considerations under $5.5 Million.  Declaring the relative importance of the evaluation factors helps prospective offerors/quoters understand the Government's needs, and helps them make their own tradeoffs as they prepare their proposals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2018 at 7:55 AM, thecontractingguy said:

Thanks for the input.  What is the point then of weighting?

To aid in making data useful for decision-making. 'Mechanical' evaluations are not generally allowed.

Olympus Bldg. Servs., Inc., B-285351, B-285351.2, Aug. 17, 2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 178 (sustaining protest where agency’s mechanical formula for scoring experience unreasonably penalized an offeror.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, thecontractingguy said:

How can you make the following work: When combined, technical approach and past performance is approximately equal to price.

I've drawn this up a few times and I am not seeing how this works. Example

Company A ranks #2 for PP and TA and #2 for Price. - If you pick Company A then you give more importance to PP and TA.

Company B ranks #3 for PP and TA and #1 for Price. - If you pick Company B then you give more importance to Price

If relevances are approximately equal, how do you work this example?

Any insight on this would be great.

The issue you raised was resolved and the question you asked was answered more than 20 years ago. Read: "The Relative Importance of Source Selection Evaluation Factors: Analysis of a Misunderstood Rule," The Nash & Cibinic Report (July 1996).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

The issue you raised was resolved and the question you asked was answered more than 20 years ago. Read: "The Relative Importance of Source Selection Evaluation Factors: Analysis of a Misunderstood Rule," The Nash & Cibinic Report (July 1996).

Thanks Vern.  Where can I get a hold of the Nash report?

Share this post


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

×