Who needs a quiet Sunday? I guess I decided I didn’t since I got a slew of questions related to my response to Jackie Robinson-Burnette’s post on LPTA a while back where she posted a picture of a partial started house addition with a blue tarped roof with the tag line “Covered Deck. Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable”. (By the way, great picture, Jackie. It illustrated the concept most people have about LPTA perfectly. You can find Jackie’s post and my comment here.)
If you know anything about me it’s--
(1) I love a chance to talk about the FAR, and
(2) source selection is one of my favorite topics because it was my favorite thing to do as a Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer.
And I did A LOT of source selections. So much so I was THE person that reviewed and critiqued all evaluation criteria written for service contracts within my branch, division, or business line at the three agencies where I worked. I was able to write evaluation criteria that were protest-proof, and I trained evaluation teams on how to evaluate criteria correctly and document their evaluation in such a manner that there were no protest gaps. I was good at it because I always wrote / reviewed solicitations from the perspective of not only the Government but the industry perspective and how it could be interpreted. This allowed us to shore up gaps before moving forward.
And this takes me back to one of the most controversial and polarizing things in source selection, use of the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) evaluation method. If you’ve been in the Federal marketplace for any amount of time you know what it is and the history behind its popularity and bad rap. For those that don’t, let’s go over it quickly.
What is LPTA?
FAR Subpart 15.101-2 covers the LPTA process and states LPTA is a source selection process that is right for use when the best value is expected to result from selection of the “technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price”. In the case of LPTA, cost tends to be the driver in the selection since technical superiority is not desired, only that the contractor meets a minimum acceptability threshold as set in the solicitation. The solicitation will also specify the award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors.
What does that mean? Ultimately, if you meet the technical thresholds set across the board and your price is the lowest, you win! It’s a way to verify that a company can meet minimum technical requirements though budget is the true driver for the acquisition.
So, let’s break that down a little more.
Technical Acceptability. The level of technical acceptability is determined by the Government and evaluation factors must describe technical acceptability in terms of objective measures and/or standards. When evaluating only “Pass/Fail”, “Go/No Go”, or “Green/Red” scores are used. To be among offerors considered for contract award, an offer must receive a “Pass”, “Go”, or “Green” in every factor and subfactor. Those offers move forward for the evaluation of price. It only takes one “Fail”, “No Go”, or “Red” rating and the offer is eliminated from further consideration. Because there is no subjectivity in this type of evaluation method, offers are not ranked in terms of technical superiority.
Conversely, when using the tradeoff method, factors are written such that subjective analysis and review results in various degrees of technical acceptability which are expressed as adjectival ratings, colors, or numeric scores within a range. A Competitive Range is established and only those offers with the most likelihood of award continue on into negotiations with the Government.
While there is no room for subjectivity in the LPTA technical review, trust me, evaluators will try to sneak it in. For example, they will use ratings like “Pass++”, “Go – “, and “Bright Green”. And you guessed it, that doesn’t fly. They get sent back to the evaluation room to do it all again and put offers clearly into one of the two categories for every factor.
In LPTA, those offers that meet the technical acceptability thresholds then moved on to the price evaluation.
Lowest Evaluated Price. Notice the word “evaluated”. This means that the agency may review the price along with any other price factors as stipulated in the solicitation for those offers that achieved a “Pass”, “Go”, or “Green” in all technical factors.
In some instances, the term “evaluated price” means the actual price offers. But in other instances, the Government may add other price factors into the mix (and as disclosed in the solicitation) to arrive at an evaluated price, or a price that may not reflect the actual price(s) proposed but is used to determine the awardee.
Evaluated prices are ranked in order from low to high. The technically acceptable offer with the lowest evaluated price is the apparent contract awardee.
When is LPTA Used?
It differs for Department of Defense (DoD) and non-DoD agencies. Section 880 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 states that, except for DoD, LPTA shall only be used when ALL the below are met—
(1) The minimum technical acceptability requirements can be comprehensively and clearly described.
(2) There is no realized, or only minimal, value from a proposal that exceeds the minimum technical or performance requirements.
(3) Technical proposals will require no, or only minimal, subjective judgment by the source selection authority as to the desirability of one offeror's proposal versus a competing proposal.
(4) There is a high degree of confidence that reviewing the technical proposals of all offerors would not result in the identification of characteristics that could provide value or benefit.
(5) The lowest price reflects the total cost, including operation and support, of the product(s) or service(s) being acquired.
(6) The Contracting Officer determines in writing the circumstances that justify the use of the LPTA process.
In the same law, except for DoD, Contracting Officers are directed that they shall AVOID, to the maximum extent practicable, the use of LPTA for procurements that are predominantly for the acquisition of—
Information technology services,
Cybersecurity services,
Systems engineering and technical assistance services,
Advanced electronic testing,
Audit or audit readiness services,
Health care services and records,
Telecommunications devices and services,
Knowledge-based professional services,
Personal protective equipment, or
Knowledge-based training or logistics services in contingency operations or other operations outside the United States, including in Afghanistan or Iraq.
The Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) Subpart 215.101-2-70 states the same rules apply within DoD but adds* that the use of LPTA shall also only be when—
No, or minimal, additional innovation or future technological advantage will be realized by using a different source selection process,
Goods to be procured are predominantly expendable in nature, are nontechnical, or have a short life expectancy or short shelf life.
The contract file includes a determination that the lowest price reflects full life-cycle costs of the product(s) or service(s) being acquired.
*(as amended by Section 822 of the NDAA for FY2018 (Pub. L. 115-91))
In addition, DoD outlines the following prohibitions:
Contracting Officers shall not use the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process to procure items designated by the requiring activity as personal protective equipment or an aviation critical safety item, when the requiring activity advises that the level of quality or failure of the equipment or item could result in combat casualties.
In accordance with section 832 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (see 10 U.S.C. 4232), contracting officers shall not use the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process to acquire engineering and manufacturing development for a major defense acquisition program for which budgetary authority is requested, beginning in fiscal year 2019 and beyond.
Contracting Officers shall make award decisions based on best value factors and criteria, as determined by the resource sponsor (in accordance with agency procedures), for an auditing contract. The use of the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process is prohibited (10 U.S.C. 240f).
Is Past Performance Evaluated under LPTA?
Unless the Contracting Officer documents the file in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.304(c)(3)(iii) that past performance is not an appropriate evaluation factor for the acquisition, it will be evaluated. ed not be an evaluation factor in lowest price technically acceptable source selections.
If the Contracting Officer elects to consider past performance as an evaluation factor, it will be evaluated like any other solicitation in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.305 but there will be no comparative assessment made. The same ratings of "Acceptable", "Unacceptable" (or similar), and "Neutral" (for no record of past performance) will be used.
If the Contracting Officer determines that a small business’ past performance is not acceptable, the matter shall be referred to the Small Business Administration (SBA) for a Certificate of Competency (COC) determination, in accordance with the procedures at FAR Subpart 19.6.
How an LPTA Evaluation is Conducted.
As is standard for all source selection procedures, the technical and price evaluations are conducted separately by different teams called the Technical Evaluation Board (TEB) and the Price Evaluation Board (PEB), who combined are known as the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). The TEB and the PEB do not show the findings of their team to the other and non-disclosure agreements are signed by all evaluators and non-voting board members (i.e., advisors).
After the Boards receive their training on how to conduct the evaluation, in accordance with the Source Selection Evaluation Plan (SSEP) (which is developed prior to the receipt of proposals), the TEB will receive copies of each offer and worksheets to document an independent review and assessment of each offer in terms of meeting the technical acceptability thresholds of each factor (and subfactor). TEB members will individually document their rationale and write down the pages of the offer and quote offer language to substantiate their position.
Once the individual reviews by TEB members are completed, the TEB will meet as a group and discuss their individual ratings and rationales until they come to a consensus evaluation rating and agree on the supporting documentation within the offer (or missing from the offer) for their findings. Typically, when using the LPTA method, once a “Fail”, “No Go”, or “Red” rating is received by an offer it is documented and the offer removed from further review and consideration for award without the remaining factors / subfactors being evaluated. Review of all factors continues for the remaining offers until all offers remaining are either eliminated from further consideration or they have received “Pass”, “Go”, or Green ratings on all factors.
The TEB completes consensus rating sheets. A final consensus TEB report of findings is prepared to summarize the process, individual and consensus ratings, and any key discussions and decisions made by the TEB, any dissenting opinions, and to summarize the outcome. The consensus evaluation report with all supporting documentation (to include individual and consensus worksheets and notes) is provided to the Contracting Officer for review and feedback.
The PEB will do its separate evaluation related to the price requirements of the solicitation similarly to the process used by the TEB (i.e., individual reviews, then by consensus, documented and a report written). Upon completion, a PEB consensus report is created and provided to the Contracting Officer, if the Contracting Officer did not take part in the price review directly.
The Contracting Officer then reviews both reports and the supporting documentation, discusses any discrepancies found, asks for more information or documentation where needed, and then writes the Source Selection Decision document outlining the process, each Boards’ findings, and the contract award decision. This decision document is then signed by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) which may be the Contracting Officer themselves but may be one level above the Contracting Officer when certain dollar thresholds are met.
Give Examples of LPTA Technical Evaluation Criteria.
“Vendor shall submit a copy of the certification documenting they are a current licensed KDHE UST contractor and tightness tester. Failure to submit this certification will cause the vendor to be rated technically.”
“Contractor shall name and provide for least one currently certified Diagnostic CT/Radiological Technologist available for the duration of the contract for the work hours shown. Include all required information as listed below with supporting credential documentation as listed in the Statement of Work. Failure to provide any document in the personnel package will result in this factor being rated as “Unacceptable.””
“The Altitude Simulation Unit to be provided must meet the following product specifications:
o Interior dimensions (minimum dimensions): 15” x 15” 15”
o Exterior dimension (maximum dimensions): 60” (W) x 30” (D) x 30” (H)
o Pressure range (minimum): 1,000’ – 8,000’
o Features a controller unit that will monitor pressure within the chamber, recognize when pressures have diverged from a given setting, and then re-pressurize as needed.
o Chamber fitted with glove access for use while pressurized.
o Whole system needs to include the pump, controller unit, and chamber.
Failure to provide a specification sheet for validation of these requirements will result in the elimination of your offer from further consideration.”
Can a Solicitation include both LPTA and Other Evaluation Criteria?
Yes, however, it is not a recommended practice. This occurs most often when a requirement must be verified through submission of a document such as a certain certification, insurance rating, or other industry standard.
Is the LPTA Evaluation Method Being Used Successfully by Government?
Well…that’s THE loaded question and where the LinkedIn post by Jackie Robinson-Burnette and my answer takes us. My opinion is--
The Government uses LPTA.
The Government currently awards contracts using LPTA methods.
BUT (and it's a big one) the Government isn’t doing it correctly.
What the Government labels as LPTA criteria really isn’t measurable simply using “pass/fail” ratings. This is why TEBs tend to play around with ratings to find a way to describe for the Contracting Officer the degrees in which offers vary. This is, as Randy Lange wrote in his comment to the post, “…LPTA disguised as “best value”.” And it drives me crazy!
There are also several experiences on both sides of the fence -- industry and Government -- and takes on it. From the Government taking the easy way out, Contracting Officers not having the time to babysit Project Managers who cannot come up with objective measures, and industry bystanders who have been battle-worn by the process when it’s not deployed correctly.
Now what do you think? What is LPTA good for? Absolutely nothing? There are still very good and reasonable use cases for LPTA, when done right!
Regardless of where you stand on the LPTA debate, now you know what LPTA is supposed to be good for and how it is supposed to work. But until the Government can use it correctly, LPTA should be used for absolutely nothing.
(August 2024)
Comentarios