How would you define value in FAR Part 15, as in "best value"?

46 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

How would you define value in FAR Part 15, as in "best value"?

Without researching the question, I would define value as used in part 15 as something like:

"The anticipated benefit of a proposal to the Government relative to other competitive proposals based upon an assessment of price and non-price factors."

The relative significance and associated benefits of an outcome in meeting the governments need considering overal effectiveness, efficiency, and timeliness.

2 hours ago, FrankJon said:

Without researching the question, I would define value as used in part 15 as something like:

"The anticipated benefit of a proposal to the Government relative to other competitive proposals based upon an assessment of price and non-price factors."

I don't intend to be mean, but I will be critical: this is an example of one of the biggest problems in our profession today - people don't take the time to research or think things through, they just go along saying or doing things unthoughtfully.

For example, why did you choose the word "proposal"? There is a good discussion going on right now in these forums about the difference between "proposals" and "offers" - might be worth a read and it will likely (hopefully) prompt you to rethink your choice of the word "proposal."

I'm going to heed my own advice and think on Vern's question for a bit before providing my input. Looking forward to the discussion.

11 minutes ago, Matthew Fleharty said:

For example, why did you choose the word "proposal"?

The use of the word proposal was intentional. When we consider value or “best value” we usually consider aspects that go beyond the offer. Past performance, experience, understanding, risk, etc.

Do you disagree?

10 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

How would you define value in FAR Part 15, as in "best value"?

I would define value as: worth assigned to an attribute of an offer or offeror

7 hours ago, FrankJon said:

The use of the word proposal was intentional. When we consider value or “best value” we usually consider aspects that go beyond the offer. Past performance, experience, understanding, risk, etc.

Do you disagree?

I disagree as to whether that's proper. When you say "we" if you're talking about the acquisition workforce you're correct in that for some absurd reason many people usually consider aspects that go beyond the offer through insane essay writing contests. This is NOT a good thing. What does it mean to evaluate their "understanding" particularly when proposals are written by capture teams (or today it could even be AI) and then, once awarded, tossed over the fence for a separate team to perform? What "value" does that provide?

Vern has written extensively critiquing the all too common practice of evaluating things/proposals that do not provide value to the government. See the following:
1.      “A Primer on Source Selection Planning: Evaluation Factors and Rating Methods” by Vern Edwards

2.      “Contracting Process Inertia: The Enduring Appeal of The Essay-Writing Contest” by Vern Edwards, Addendum by Ralph C. Nash

3.      “Streamlining Source Selection by Improving the Quality of Evaluation Factors” by Vern Edwards, Addendum by Ralph C. Nash

Nate Silver wrote in his book The Signal and the Noise "Information is no longer a scare commodity; we have more of it than we know what to do with. But relatively little of it is useful. We perceive it selectively, subjectively, and without much self-regard for the distortions that this causes. We think we want information when what we really want is knowledge." (emphasis added)

We can do better - let's not regurgitate the poor source selection practices that have built up over time having been copy and pasted ad infinitum to deliver acquisition outcomes that no sane person would consider respectable.

7 hours ago, Matthew Fleharty said:

I disagree as to whether that's proper. When you say "we" if you're talking about the acquisition workforce you're correct in that for some absurd reason many people usually consider aspects that go beyond the offer through insane essay writing contests. This is NOT a good thing.

7 hours ago, Matthew Fleharty said:

We can do better - let's not regurgitate the poor source selection practices that have built up over time having been copy and pasted ad infinitum to deliver acquisition outcomes that no sane person would consider respectable.

Matthew - You seem to think I'm suggesting something that I'm not.

1. I never said that "essay-writing contests" are a good idea. In fact, I strongly agree with your (and Vern's) sentiment on this topic.
   

2. I provided 4 examples of things we commonly evaluate for that are not necessarily part of the offer, and you lumped them together as part of the "essay-writing" epidemic. But factors like "experience" and "past performance" are the solution to this epidemic, not the problem. And all non-price factors, in one way or another, address "risk." Surely you didn't mean to state that consideration of these aspects during a source selection is "improper."

The original question was:

How would you define value in FAR Part 15, as in "best value"?

I interpreted this post to be soliciting opinions on how to define "value" through the lens of the current and future part 15s. Both the current and future part 15s state that: "The goal of source selection is to select the proposal that represents the best value to the Government."

On the other hand, if the question is actually asking how we would define "value" if we were drafting (or re-drafting) part 15 from scratch, perhaps I'd give a different response.

1 minute ago, FrankJon said:

I provided 4 examples of things we commonly evaluate for that are not necessarily part of the offer, and you lumped them together as part of the "essay-writing" epidemic. But factors like "experience" and "past performance" are the solution to this epidemic, not the problem. And all non-price factors, in one way or another, address "risk." Surely you didn't mean to state that consideration of these aspects during a source selection is "improper."

I should have been more clear - I don't take exception to evaluating past performance or experience (both fit within the definition I provided as attributes of an offeror). I do however take exception with evaluating things like "understanding" and "risk" as I think they produce noise.

6 minutes ago, FrankJon said:

The original question was:

I interpreted this post to be soliciting opinions on how to define "value" through the lens of the current and future part 15s. Both the current and future part 15s state that: "The goal of source selection is to select the proposal that represents the best value to the Government."

On the other hand, if the question is actually asking how we would define "value" if we were drafting (or re-drafting) part 15 from scratch, perhaps I'd give a different response.

I think both current and future part 15s are wrong for stating that. I'm curious what your difference response would be.

21 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

How would you define value in FAR Part 15, as in "best value"?

I am struggling with the "you". My thought may seem like a cop-out but isn't it how value is defined by the mission/program folks and the role of me as CO is to insure that they have adequately defined what value they are looking for whether it be monetary, or otherwise?

1 hour ago, Matthew Fleharty said:

I do however take exception with evaluating things like "understanding" and "risk” as I think they produce noise.

I’m curious about risk in your comment. How would you consider an offerors approach is based on something untried or with limited successful results? Past performance and/or experience or something else?

13 minutes ago, formerfed said:

I’m curious about risk in your comment. How would you consider an offerors approach is based on something untried or with limited successful results? Past performance and/or experience or something else?

I would not consider an offeror's approach as an evaluation factor.

Why is there such an obsession with evaluating offerors' approaches?

As for "risk" in a source selection, how do you measure it? And, if you try to, how is it distinct from what has already been evaluated (the offer and the offeror's capabilities) as to not create double counting? Moreover, the "risk" might not be attributable to the offer/offeror at all - it may simply be the product of the government's own requirements (consider the risk in recapitalizing the country's intercontinental ballistic missiles...) at which point why waste the time.

On 11/3/2025 at 10:52 AM, Vern Edwards said:

How would you define value in FAR Part 15, as in "best value"?

In the context of FAR part 15, value is a measurement of benefit in an expected outcome of an acquisition. This can be inferred from the definition of best value at FAR 2.101:

"Best value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement."

How should value be defined is a different question.

5 hours ago, Matthew Fleharty said:

I would not consider an offeror's approach as an evaluation factor.

Why is there such an obsession with evaluating offerors' approaches?

Offeror’s approach is important in many situations. Multiple ways may exist to achieve a needed outcome especially in R&D. You want to throughly understand how they will perform and assess likelihood of success. It doesn’t have to be an evaluation factor, nor should it be explicitly. But it needs considered.

2 hours ago, formerfed said:

Offeror’s approach is important in many situations. Multiple ways may exist to achieve a needed outcome especially in R&D. You want to throughly understand how they will perform and assess likelihood of success. It doesn’t have to be an evaluation factor, nor should it be explicitly. But it needs considered.

In almost all cases an offeror’s approach is not a promise/offer - assuming the approach is not a promise, do you still believe the government should evaluate approaches?

Google AI dump:

In a legal context, particularly in public procurement and government contracting, the term

"best value" means the overall combination of quality, price, and other relevant criteria that provides the greatest overall benefit or the most advantageous offer in response to the specific requirements. 

7 hours ago, Matthew Fleharty said:

In almost all cases an offeror’s approach is not a promise/offer - assuming the approach is not a promise, do you still believe the government should evaluate approaches?

This is off topic. The topic is your definition of value.

On 11/3/2025 at 10:52 AM, Vern Edwards said:

How would you define value in FAR Part 15, as in "best value"?

That's the question.

If you were assigned to overhaul FAR Part 15 and were told to write a definition of value (not "best value", just value), what would you write? What is value?

I would substitute "consideration" or "contract consideration" for "value."

37 minutes ago, Neil Roberts said:

I would substitute "consideration" or "contract consideration" for "value."

A penny or a peppercorn would be value under FAR Part 15? Consideration is an ancient legal concept that has little if anything to do with value as that term is used in FAR..

Let's determine the category of things that value belongs in, then describe what things make value distinct from other things in that category.

I think value is a measure--like height and weight.

Alternatively I would substitute the following for "value" after "best"

...overall combination of quality, price, and other relevant criteria that provides the greatest overall benefit and/or the most advantageous contract to the Government in response to the specific requirements. 

 

1 hour ago, Don Mansfield said:

I think value is a measure--like height and weight.

I don't think height and weight are good analogies. These can be measured using objective standards.

In my view, value is always subjective. ("I value this heirloom." "I value an office with a view.") The process we use to compare value propositions may be prescriptive, but the value we ascribe to each attribute is always subjective.

EDIT: Or maybe that's what makes these things distinct within the category of measurements.

Edited November 5Nov 5 by FrankJon

Ok, but do you agree that value is a measure of something? Is that the right category?

4 minutes ago, Don Mansfield said:

Ok, but do you agree that value is a measure of something? Is that the right category?

Yes, I think so.