Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs
G Smith

Receiving two bids on LPTA with same price

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

Any non-price consideration that gives one proposer an advantage over another - a better chance for award- unless stated in the solicitation - in an LPTA  - is unfair. The stated non-price criteria is “technically acceptable proposal by a responsible Offeror/proposer”.

In my opinion, the tiebreaker among technically acceptable (thus EQUAL) offers from responsible proposers with equal prices should be by chance -  some type of drawing. 

The above assumes that prices are fair and reasonable and within the budget. 

An exception could be made by conducting discussions,  advising the equal lowest priced proposers that there is a tie in the price competition and allowing them to revise their price proposal. This would be most appropriate where the proposals appear to be high, and/or above the budget.

Then, if there is still a tie,  select the winner by chance. 

Edit: I could be convinced to do the price revision opportunity among tied lowest prices before resorting to chance,  if that is considered fair. Just watched Final Jeopardy on TV.  Assuming that the government reserved the right to conduct discussions. 

Further edit: could that be considered some form of the dreaded and disfavored reverse auction if the tied prices are fair,  reasonable and affordable? 

An equal chance among equal, otherwise acceptable proposals is the most fair tiebreaker. 

You're overthinking what I said. I'm saying that if there is a tie between technically acceptable offers with the same lowest price, then I would choose the one that submitted their offer first. That is all. I'm not altering the results of the technical determination and making it unfair by doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, coolarmydude said:

I'm saying that if there is a tie between technically acceptable offers with the same lowest price, then I would choose the one that submitted their offer first.

So, if the time for submission of offers or quotes is 4:30PM, if 3 offers or quotes are submitted at 2:00 PM, 2:01 PM and 2:02 PM, and if there are 3 equal evaluated prices, then the 2:00 PM submission wins?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, napolik said:

So, if the time for submission of offers or quotes is 4:30PM, if 3 offers or quotes are submitted at 2:00 PM, 2:01 PM and 2:02 PM, and if there are 3 equal evaluated prices, then the 2:00 PM submission wins?

Yes, I would select that offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2019 at 1:18 PM, coolarmydude said:

I would select the offer that was received before the other. That way, the decision is still purely based on the Offerors' efforts.

This is what coolarmydude proposed...

an unstated comparative merit factor in an LPTA where extra value is inferred for earlier proposal submission . 

There is no requirement or even a stated preference for early submission, dubious value associated with early submission; there may be possibility of mistakes; the proposal may be poorer or needlessly high not taking all the time needed to refine the proposal or to obtain best pricing ...

it is a valueless discriminator in a process where the only discriminator between acceptable proposals is - by definition - price! 

You would be introducing a consideration for “additional value” for early submission of otherwise equal proposals. Why is it so hard to understand that you are bastardizing the concept of LPTA? And what extra value is associated with a submission that came in before another one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, joel hoffman said:

This is what coolarmydude proposed...

an unstated comparative merit factor in an LPTA where extra value is inferred for earlier proposal submission . 

There is no requirement for early submission, dubious value associated with early submission, possibility of mistakes or even lack of poorer proposal by not taking all the time needed to refine the proposal...

 

It's a tiebreaker decision, not an extra value determination. There is nothing anywhere that says this is wrong. And there is no such thing as an "early submission." It's a timely submission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All otherwise “tied”submissions should have an equal chance for award. 

...unless the solicitation included language that social engineering (“public policy”) would be considered when selecting from equally priced, acceptable proposals. SB, SDB, Hubzone, etc.

Sorry that you can’t understand that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, coolarmydude said:

It's a tiebreaker decision, not an extra value determination. There is nothing anywhere that says this is wrong. And there is no such thing as an "early submission." It's a timely submission.

Ok, then - you are in effect saying that an earlier or “timelier” submission is the best value and deserves to be awarded the contract - but didn’t state or suggest that to industry in the solicitation. 

Still improper.

Still sorry that you can’t grasp the distinction between providing equal chances for equally priced, acceptable proposals and giving ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION  (“tiebreaker”)  for one supposedly being superior than another, introducing an arbitrary,  unstated, non-price factor.

I am familiar with “tie breakers” in sports, such as volleyball tournaments, to determine relative rankings. They are used to determine some RELATIVE order of merit in ranking the positions of teams with equal win-loss percentages in pool play for playoff purposes. They are always stated in the tournament rules.

Then - if all else fails as a discriminator - they flip a coin or draw straws. It’s called... CHANCE!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, coolarmydude said:

It's a tiebreaker decision, not an extra value determination. There is nothing anywhere that says this is wrong. 

Coolarmydude, have you ever read any GAO Protests  based upon the agency using unstated evaluation criteria to discriminate between proposals?

Try a Google Search , such as “ GAO Protest unstated evaluation criteria”. Then consider whether a “more timely proposal submission”amounts to using unstated evaluation criteria in the award decision.  

Edit: See where it has been used during proposal evaluation or during the selecting official’s award decision. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

Then consider whether a “more timely proposal submission”amounts to using unstated evaluation criteria in the award decision.  

Even if the LPTA solicitation included a statement that the earliest submitted proposal would receive the award in the event that more than one proposal/ quote contained the same evaluated price, I suspect that a protest against this criterion would be successful. In my view, to base a source selection upon the timeliness of proposal/ quote submission would be deemed to be unreasonable since the timing of proposal/ quote submission has nothing to do with the integrity of the selection decision or with legislation addressing the resolution of ties (i.e. socioeconomic factors or drawing by lots). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, napolik said:

Even if the LPTA solicitation included a statement that the earliest submitted proposal would receive the award in the event that more than one proposal/ quote contained the same evaluated price, I suspect that a protest against this criterion would be successful. In my view, to base a source selection upon the timeliness of proposal/ quote submission would be deemed to be unreasonable since the timing of proposal/ quote submission has nothing to do with the integrity of the selection decision or with legislation addressing the resolution of ties (i.e. socioeconomic factors or drawing by lots). 

Yes, I agree. It’s an unreasonable criterion, is unrelated to minimum acceptable quality or to a better price and provides no additional value. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...