Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable evaluation criteria used in the November 2014 request for proposal for the program executive office soldier Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA) contract
Loading...
Authors
Fujita, Lance
Pearson, Joe
Noel, Troy
Subjects
acquisition workforce personnel demonstration
best value
cost plus fixed fee
indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity
industry day
knowledge based services
lowest price technically acceptable
performance work statement
request for proposal
source section evaluation process
source selection criteria
subjective tradeoff
systems engineering and technical assistance
time and materials/labor hours
trade space
uniform contract format
value adjusted total evaluated price
best value
cost plus fixed fee
indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity
industry day
knowledge based services
lowest price technically acceptable
performance work statement
request for proposal
source section evaluation process
source selection criteria
subjective tradeoff
systems engineering and technical assistance
time and materials/labor hours
trade space
uniform contract format
value adjusted total evaluated price
Advisors
Naegle, Brad
Gerstein, Kathleen
Date of Issue
2017-09
Date
Sep-17
Publisher
Monterey, California: Naval Postgraduate School
Language
Abstract
This project examines the use of a lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) source selection method of evaluation by analyzing actual evaluation criteria. The project analyzed aspects of the evaluation process for replies received in response to a request for proposal (RFP) for systems engineering and technical assistance (SETA) support. This was an objective analysis of the risks associated with the U.S. government’s (USG) use of LPTA for a specific SETA contracting effort. The authors reviewed guidance and policy from USG entities on the appropriate use of LPTA. Evaluation criteria identified in other SETA contract efforts available through the Federal Business Opportunities website were compared against the solicitation. The analysis led to three distinct findings. First, the evaluation factors were not consistent and traceable to instructions, conditions, and notices to the bidders within the RFP. Second, the source selection evaluation criteria were not well defined. Third, there were gaps with regard to requirements of the contract. Our recommendations include better defining technically acceptable and providing more guidance to the offerors with regard to the labor requirements and prerequisites. The authors also recommend the Government Services Administration (GSA) as a course of action for obtaining labor resources.
Type
Thesis
Description
Series/Report No
Department
Business & Public Policy (GSBPP)
Identifiers
NPS Report Number
Sponsors
Funder
Format
Citation
Distribution Statement
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
Rights
This publication is a work of the U.S. Government as defined in Title 17, United States Code, Section 101. Copyright protection is not available for this work in the United States.