ACC_APG_S3CoE_LPTA_vs_Trade_Off__Symposium_Key_Summary10July19.pdf

ACC APG Source Selection Support Center of Excellence ~S3CoE Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) vs Trade-Off on 10 July 2019

Key Information Summary

There were a total of 252 registrants; 74 industry partners and 61 government partners attended for a total attendance of 135 participants. We started at 9:00 am and ended at 10:30 am.

The ACC APG S3CoE welcomed the audience, presented the briefing information and moderated the panel audience discussion. The symposium afforded our industry and government partners an opportunity to have a greater understanding of the differences between LPTA and Trade-off, by defining both best value processes, discussing the types of requirements suitable for each, myths and pending LPTA National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) updates.

The combined industry and government six (6) panel members were represented by Mr. Tony Steelman, DalCom Engineering (small business), Mr. Brandon Pugsley, IAP Worldwide Services (large business), Mr. Stephen Slotnick, Communications Electronics Command-CECOM (requirements owner), Ms. Kari Schoerner, ACC APG (senior procurement analyst), Ms. Allison Gregory, ACC APG (contracting Officer) and Mr. William Street ACC APG (cost/price analyst).

The key summarized information is listed below.

1. Industry wanted to know if the government would commit to no longer using LPTA based on pending NDAA updates. The government clarified that the NDAA updates do not prohibit certain types of requirements and that LPTA may still be used as appropriate and allowed. The integrated defense acquisition team discusses acquisition planning based on the requirements to determine the best value acquisition process (LPTA or Trade-off).

2. Industry wanted to know how “new contractors” may “break into new areas” based on government familiarity with some contractors. The government panel stressed the importance of responding to market research. The government explained the difference between corporate experience and past performance.

The government defined corporate experience as the type of work companies have performed and past performance is defined as the quality of how the relevant work was performed. The government panel also explained how they evaluate in accordance solicitations. Both government and industry partners explained their training processes, for responding to solicitations and evaluation solicitations by pairing experienced personnel with personnel that require training. Industry noted how they do best practices and lessons learned for each step of the process thru post award debriefings. The government commented how they have requirements owners and contracting (legal also) train together; with plans to continue promoting integrated training.

3. Industry requested a definition of agile contracting for the Responsive Strategic Sources for Services (RS3) contract. The government defined RS3 agile contracting as changing and evolving requirements; the task order proposal requests are generated to keep pace with changes.

4. A key discussion highlight, focused on the importance of the cost control process for LPTA and Trade-Off and how it is captured in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System (CPARS). The government noted that analysis is at times required; to assess if cost increases were due to government changes or otherwise. It was suggested that contractors include in their regular status reports, projected cost increases with rationale early; to prevent adverse CPARS ratings due to not controlling costs. (The government recognizes that cost type contracts may be more than the negotiating contract costs due to allowable costs increases.)

5. There was a great discussion on potential risks related to manpower, labor costs, management plan contents and employee benefits. Industry requested to know what the government has done with actual labor rates requested, for some of ACC APG multiple award contracts, indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (MAC IDIQ). The government team commented on how the actual labor rates for the Software and Systems Engineering Services Next Generation (SSES NexGen) are used; along with government estimates to establish upper and lower cost limits. The lower limit is established to prevent contractors from racing to the bottom. Lower limit cost proposals may be evaluated as unrealistic and the upper limits determine reasonableness.

6. Industry requested to know how many times in trade-off source selections have successful offerors been the lowest price. The government referenced previous statistics, which determined successful offerors that were the lowest price, many times were the higher rated proposals. The government acknowledged it would be beneficial to resume tracking this information.

7. The S3CoE announced a request for FY 20 symposium topics will be issued on FedBizOpps (mid-August 2019).