Vern Edwards

@Scrutor What you have described is a failure of requirements analysis and market research. Asking for a proposed approach should not be a substitute for competent requirements analysis. But I think you already know that.

It's nice to see how GSA has simplified procurement.

The SSA compares A to B, A is best. Compares A to C, A is best, Compares A to D, A is best. Compares A to E, A is best. Stop. Select A. It doesn't matter whether B is better than C, etc. In decision theory terms, A dominates the others. That assumes that all offerors were evaluated properly and that the comparisons were sound. or Comare A to B, A is best. Compare A to C, C is best. Compare C to B... et cetera.

Given your scenario, it is not necessary to compare B to C, unless you're making multiple awards or the SSA is just curious. However, C might be next in line for award if its protest were that the agency had misevaluated A or that A was ineligible for award.

You keep saying that ratings are "bs:. Well-developed rating schemes are very useful. The more numerous and complex the evaluation factors, the more useful they are. But you seem locked into your position, which is no skin off my nose, so I say go your own way. I don't think you must use ratings, others have said the same, and if you agree, then don't. Bye.

But you can interpret that sentence the way you want to interpret it.

The purpose of ratings is to enable conversion of diverse factor assessments to a common scale, so that they can be aggregated into an overall assessment of each offeror and its proposal, thus facilitating ready comparison. As two experts have written: von Winterfeldt and Edwards, Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research, p. 20. That's what you say is sometimes a waste of time.

15.306(c)(1) says: (a) ... Evaluations may be conducted using any rating method or combination of methods, including color or adjectival ratings, numerical weights, and ordinal rankings. That says evaluations "may" be conducted using ratings. It does not say shall or must.

FAR does not mandate the use of ratings, but some agency publications do. See, e.g., the DOD Source Selection Procedures.

@Sam101 What do you think is the purpose or assigning ratings to evaluation factor findings?

Although I could quibble with some of tht wording ("a construct of risks justifying profit"), and some people might quibble with price being an estimate, I think that even a so-called "firm-fixed price" is often nothing more than an estimate of what the government will have to pay for goods and services, e.g., construction and system full-scale development. Price is a very complicated idea to which the current FAR Subpart 15.4 and the overhauled Subpart 15.4 do not do justice.

@FrankJon Well, yeah, that statement was probably overly optimistic. 😂 😏 😞

What you described in that sentence is not a tradeoff. You should stop posting and start reading and studying. Begin with this: "What are tradeoffs in decision-making?" It's an elementary read. https://www.1000minds.com/articles/what-are-trade-offs Then buy and read the classic Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, by Keeney and Raiffa. Or you can buy and read Smart Choices: A Practical Guide to Making Better Decisions, by Hammond, Keeney, and Raiffa, and read chapter 6, Tradeoffs. And read Even Swaps: A Rational Method for Making Trade-offs by Hammond, Keeney, and Raiffa in The Harvard Business Review, (March-April 1998).

@Sam101 That's absurd. Ratings can be very helpful. Try reading a textbook on decision analysis. Buy yourself a copy of Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research by Von Winterfeldt and Edwards (no relation) and read it before popping off. In a professional environment only informed opinions are entitled to respect.

No, it's not stronger than I think.

The sentence allowing COs to show costs to the evaluators was added by the FAR Part 15 Rewrite of 1997.

FAR doesn't say that. See FAR 15.305(a)(4) Cost information. Cost information may be provided to members of the technical evaluation team in accordance with agency procedures.

The Heilmeier "catechism" is used to evaluate proposals to fund research projects. I don't know if it's been used in FAR Part 15 competitive negotiations ("source selections"). I doubt it. For those who don't know about it, here are some links" https://www.darpa.mil/about/heilmeier-catechism https://www.depts.ttu.edu/research/ordc/Resources/heilmeier-catechism.php https://userpages.cs.umbc.edu/finin/home/heilmeyerCatechism.html https://userpages.cs.umbc.edu/finin/home/heilmeyerCatechism.html

Does this publication provide the answer you are looking for? https://www.esrs.gov/documents/eSRS_Quick_Reference_for_Contractors_Filing_an_SSR_Individual_Report.pdf How about this? https://business.defense.gov/Portals/57/Guide%20to%20Preparing%20and%20Reviewing%20a%20Summary%20Subcontract%20Report%20%28SSR%29%20for%20an%20Individual%20Subcontracting%20Plan%20%28May%202024%29.pdf Or this? https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-09/25_0329_osdbu-esrs_business-rules-and-process_v1.1-1.pdf

I think it's a good idea, but I don't want to oversell it. We already have too much mindless mimicry in the contracting business. The main idea is to put more thought into how we do what we do, instead of engaging in so much cutting and pasting.

Instead of instructing offerors to "describe your proposed approach", why not instruct them to answer a set of specific questions? Why shouldn't contracting officer tell technical personnel to develop a list of specific questions they want offerors to answer? Requiring them to develop a list of specific questions would force them to think through what they want to know. The CO could sit with them and edit the questions for clarity and specificity. The questions could then be ordered logically. Instructing the offerors to answer the same specific questions in the same order would force them to write focused responses. The CO could set a maximum word count for each question, rather than an overall proposal page limit. Every proposal would thus be structured in the same way, and every offeror's answers would be directly comparable to every other offeror's answers. Offerors could thus be evaluated and compared based on their specific responses, which would be fair and would facilitate efficient evaluation and ranking. It would also make it easier to pinpoint strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies. Of course, that approach would require literacy, articulacy, clear thinking, and competence on the part of all involved, so maybe it's too difficult for government work. But it would be innovative. And isn't that the buzzword of the day? 🤔

The question is: What do we mean by "approach"? When we ask offerors to describe their proposed approach to this or that, what do we want them to include in the description? Here's the definition of approach (noun) from the Chambers Dictionary:

I think we need to agree on what is meant by "approach". Early on in acquisition the word approach referred to a conceptual design of a product or system, and programs evaluated design approaches. What do we mean by it now? When you ask offerors to describe their proposed approaches to performing a service contract, what do we want to know?

Well, yeah, until they hand you the hemlock cup.

Thanks for that Don. Good AI response. I also recommend the entry on a priori knowledge in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.