4 minutes ago, FrankJon said:

Yes, I think so.

Eh, maybe not. I would say value is a preference, regardless of how much preference we have for a certain thing. We either do or don't value an attribute.

Measurement is what we do to determine which thing possesses more value.

8 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

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?

Value is the attainment of one or more preferred attributes.

Deleted. Didn't see FrankJon's latest posts.

1 hour ago, FrankJon said:

Value is the attainment of one or more preferred attributes.

So value is a type of attainment? What category do we put it in?

So best value is the answer to the question "How do (or should) buyers, with multiple criteria, decide what to buy?" Answer: By selecting the proposal that represents best value.

I propose that 'best value' is simply the federal acquisition application of an enormously rich and influential school of economic thought - decision theory. Many Nobel prizes have been won by economists studying this topic. At its broadest, decision theory is the study of how actors make economic decisions.

The pioneers of decision theory, Von Neumann & Morgenstern (1940's), would define best value as the (source selection) decision that maximizes expected utility under constraints.

So Best = Maximum

Value = Utility

Before you object to me kicking the can down the road when it comes to defining 'value' I will quote the great Jeremy Bentham..

By utility is meant that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness, (all this in the present case comes to the same thing) or (what comes again to the same thing) to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered: if that party be the community in general, then the happiness of the community: if a particular individual, then the happiness of that individual.

14 hours ago, Don Mansfield said:

So value is a type of attainment? What category do we put it in?

Family: Contract attributes

Genus: Contract attributes of significance to the government

Species: Contract attributes of significance to the government that address the government’s objectives

In any government contract arrangement, the government identifies attributes of significance. For each attribute of significance we have an objective (“more of this” or “less of that”). A contract that addresses our objectives provides some amount of value. The overall contract value is a calculation based on the level to which the contractor fulfills our objectives less the impact of failing to address any objectives.

I think you can square Matthew’s “worth assigned to attributes” with FrankJon’s “attainment of preferences.”

FAR 2.101 defines best value as the expected outcome that gives the Government the greatest overall benefit. In practice, that just means: value = the worth the Government assigns to specific attributes (performance, schedule, risk, etc.) relative to price for this buy.

Two quick bridges:

1. “Essay contest” issue. Matthew’s right about what happens in practice, but not about what the FAR demands. In places like R&D and cost‑type work, the FAR actually requires us to evaluate understanding and risk; the problem is sloppy factor design. We ask for vague narratives instead of concrete, outcome‑linked stuff (e.g., resource‑loaded schedules, risk registers, test approaches), and that’s where the noise comes from.

2. Proposal vs. offer. That’s a formation label, not an evaluation limiter. FAR 15.305(a) tells us to evaluate both the proposal and the offeror’s ability to perform—so we’re not boxed in there.

Bottom line: Value is subjective at the source (agency preferences), but must be made measurable in the evaluation (ratings, tradeoffs). The job is to pick attributes that actually matter for this requirement and design factors that measure those—without turning it into a creative writing contest.

22 minutes ago, It Depends said:

“Essay contest” issue. Matthew’s right about what happens in practice, but not about what the FAR demands. In places like R&D and cost‑type work, the FAR actually requires us to evaluate understanding and risk; the problem is sloppy factor design. We ask for vague narratives instead of concrete, outcome‑linked stuff (e.g., resource‑loaded schedules, risk registers, test approaches), and that’s where the noise comes from.

True. And we ask for written "proposals" instead of interviews (oral presentations).

The "concrete" kind of stuff must be based on what are often (usually?) poorly written SOWs and, in competitive acquisitions, without an opportunity to discuss in detail with the prospective client before preparataion, which makes that "stuff" practically useless.