In a recent GAO Protest, B-290159 Aulson & Sky Company, it stated that the Army used the following basis for its award:

"The RFP stated that past performance and technical capability, when combined, would be
considered significantly more important than price; however, as proposals became more equal in terms of past performance and technical capability, price would become more important."

I see similar language all the time, and if fact it is often used in RFPs issued in my office. However, I have argued that one doesn't need to include "however, as proposals became more equal in terms of past performance and technical capability, price would become more important."

I find two main problems with such statements:

1) What does "price becomes more important" mean? Does it mean that price is now more important than technical and past performance factors, or does it merely mean that price is more important than it was at the time of solicitation issuance, but tech and PP factors may still be more important.

2) It is redundant - if you have two offerors, and they have identical PP/Tech scores, price is automatically the determining factor - you don't have to state that "price becomes more important."

Your comments are appreciated.

Mike

By Anonymous on Thursday, May 23, 2002 - 10:28 am:

I think you are reading too much into the statement. To me it simply states the obvious about decision making processes. In contracting that is a necessity since what is written is critical and one makes a serious mistake to rely on assumptions things are "obvious." In this particular case we have one factor, price, that is often assumed to be the sole determining factor. It amazes me how many in and out of government assume "low bid" wins hands down. Price must be considered important, but it does not always trump other factors.

Obviously in any decision where some factors approach equality they become effectively null and other factors gain importance by default. In politics it is called the swing vote. Major decisions in all realms are often decided by minor factors when no clear decision can be made on the stated important ones. That is a fact of life.

What I read here is no more and no less than the agency considers past performance and technical capability more important than price and will make a decision there where clear differences exist. The secondary price factor will obviously become more important than intended in use as a tie breaking factor if evaluating those two factors do not disclose clear differences.

If in reality (or perhaps indecisiveness) past performance, technical capability and price somehow all reached equality some even more minor factor would assume vast importance as a tie breaker. I think price is singled out here to counter its oft falsely assumed role as a sole determinant.

By formerfed on Thursday, May 23, 2002 - 10:37 am:

Mike,

I agree with you. The "however" part isn't needed.

If I remember correctly, one agency crafted this in response to a GAO decisison they lost. The decision occured many years ago about the time the use of best value source selection began to appear in non-weapon systems and R&D. In that case, the losing agency deviated from rather strict selection language in the RFP, so this was an attempt to provide more flexibility. Other agencies picked up on it, and it appears quite often.

By joel hoffman on Thursday, May 23, 2002 - 12:06 pm:

Mike, since the early 1990's, I have a description of the basis of award, similar to that below, in our RFP evaluation criteria. It looks like the example you cited. I originally added it at the insistence of our Chief of Contracting. He may have based this on a GAO decision, as Formerfed mentioned.

As to whether it fits the situation where price and quality factors are not equal, I would think it would probably work. The basic intent is to let offerors know that when the quality or price differences between proposals are minimal, differences in the other will be more important in the selection determination.

"XX.1. The Government will award a firm fixed-price contract to that responsible Offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and has been determined to be most advantageous to the Government, quality (comprised of technical approach and performance capability factors), price and other factors considered. The rated technical evaluation criteria and price are considered equal. As technical scores and relative advantages and disadvantages become less distinct, differences in price between proposals are of increased importance in determining the most advantageous proposal. Conversely, as differences in price become less distinct, differences in scoring and relative advantages and disadvantages between proposals are of increased importance to the determination.

XX.2. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer. The right is also reserved to reject any and all offers. The basis of award will be a conforming offer, the price or cost of which may or may not be the lowest. If other than the lowest offer, it must be sufficiently more advantageous than the lowest offer to justify the payment of additional amounts." happy sails! joel hoffman