Posted July 3, 20241 yr comment_85188 Background: Hypothetical situation. A competitive situation where the Technical Factor is more important than the Price Factor. Offeror A is highly technically rated. Assumption: Typically, a Trade-Off analysis would include the highest technically rated Offeror and other Offerors with a lower price; trading off price for the higher technical solution. Is there any legal or contracting rationale to include in the Trade-Off analysis: An Offeror (B) who's technically (overall) rated equal to Offeror (A), with a higher price than Offeror (A)? and/or An Offeror (C) who's technically (overall) rated lower and higher in price than Offeror (A)? Thank you in advance for your response(s)!
July 3, 20241 yr comment_85189 27 minutes ago, ArmyofOne said: Background: Hypothetical situation. A competitive situation where the Technical Factor is more important than the Price Factor. Offeror A is highly technically rated. Assumption: Typically, a Trade-Off analysis would include the highest technically rated Offeror and other Offerors with a lower price; trading off price for the higher technical solution. Is there any legal or contracting rationale to include in the Trade-Off analysis: An Offeror (B) who's technically (overall) rated equal to Offeror (A), with a higher price than Offeror (A)? and/or An Offeror (C) who's technically (overall) rated lower and higher in price than Offeror (A)? Thank you in advance for your response(s)! 1. No, but you should explain somewhere why you consider the two to be technically equal--don't just say they got the same rating. Then, conclude that (A) is a better value because of their lower price. 2. No, because you wouldn't be making a tradeoff. You should compare (A) and (C) and explain why (A) is superior technically, then conclude that (A) is a better value because of their lower price. Document a comparative analysis of each offer against each other offer and explain why one is a better value than the other. Not all comparisons will require you to perform a tradeoff analysis.
July 3, 20241 yr comment_85190 In your hypo, is the procurement a negotiated procurement? If so, is it LPTA? Also, if a negotiated procurement, does the RFP state that award will be made without discussions?
July 4, 20241 yr comment_85203 @ArmyofOne On 7/3/2024 at 10:06 AM, ArmyofOne said: Is there any legal or contracting rationale to include in the Trade-Off analysis: An Offeror (B) who's technically (overall) rated equal to Offeror (A), with a higher price than Offeror (A)? and/or An Offeror (C) who's technically (overall) rated lower and higher in price than Offeror (A)? My answer is that you must include all in your tradeoff analysis, but in your scenario the tradeoffs are simple. Here is your scenario, using numerical scoring of the nonprice factors on a 0 to 100 point scale for the sake of simplicity. The numbers symbolize overall value, considering both strengths and weaknesses. Two offerors with the same score are indistinguishable in terms of overall value, regardless of the specifics of their proposals. Offeror A 80/100 points $1,000,000 Offeror B 80/100 points $1,250,000 Offeror C 70/100 points $1,100,000 All are "technically acceptable". Compare A to B (your No. 1). Since they are essentially the same, technically speaking, and B is more expensive, B is eliminated immediately. Why would you choose B? Why pay more for the same value? Document your analysis and explain your conclusion. Compare A to C (your No. 2). Since A is technically superior and has a lower price, there is no tradeoff to be made. C is eliminated immediately. Again, why would you choose C? Why pay more for less value? Document your analysis and explain your conclusion. You have made nonprice/price tradeoffs when comparing A to B and to C, but in your scenario the tradeoffs are very simple. Now suppose there is an Offeror D, 90/100 points $1,100,000. D is technically superior to A by 10 points, but would cost $100,000 more. You must determine what good things you would get from D that wouldn't get from A and then determine whether that difference is worth the extra $100,000, which is a judgment call, and depends on the relative importance of technical and price and the magnitude of the differences. Document your analysis and explain your conclusion. You should do some reading about tradeoff analysis. Try Decision Analysis for Management Judgment, 5th ed., by Goodwin and Wright (2004). And read this: Even Swaps: A Rational Method for Making Tradeoffs https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ralph-Keeney/publication/13119982_Even_Swaps_A_Rational_Method_for_Making_Trade-offs/links/02e7e52f52123c0af0000000/Even-Swaps-A-Rational-Method-for-Making-Trade-offs.pdf
July 5, 20241 yr comment_85205 On 7/3/2024 at 1:13 PM, Retreadfed said: In your hypo, is the procurement a negotiated procurement? If so, is it LPTA? Per the thread title, it is a best value, trade-off. Per the opening statement, technical is more important than price. Ergo, it is not LPTA.
November 1, 2024Nov 1 comment_87364 I don't remember, but maybe I seen some contracting officers compare B to C even when A is the awardee... is there a point of that? I don't see a point, unless the government wants to paint a picture as to how offerors were ranked, in terms of offeror B was next in line for award, making offeror C not an interested party, maybe, but other than that, I don't see a reason to compare B to C. ... Do most agencies compare B to C? Or only A to B and A to C?
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.