LPTA_vs._Tradeoff.pdf

LPTA vs. Trade-Off

Q: Best Value vs. LPTA: We see that sometimes a higher skill level will be of value to the

Government, but LPTA doesn’t allow for the added value. Clients aren’t getting what they need because they don’t write what they want with LPTA. LPTA seems like a price shoot out. We are expressing that LPTA might not be the best way to meet the customer’s need.

A: The term best value includes both trade-off and Lowest Price Technically Acceptable

(LPTA). USAMS is an ordering vehicle used to procure technical skill sets to support the

USAMS PWS. Each requirement needs to identify what the minimum skill set requirement is.

If a customer desires a trade-off that customer also has to define what skill sets would be of value to the Government to trade for. Trade-off decisions are based on the specific requirement details and the available budget. Each requirement goes through a process to determine if a trade-off or

LPTA will be used as the evaluation method.

Q: For task order evaluations, under what criteria would a best value be preferred over an

LPTA.

USAMS PWS. Each requirement needs to identify what the minimum skill set requirement is.

If a customer desires a trade-off that customer also has to define what skill sets would be of value to the Government to trade for. Trade-off decisions are based on the specific requirement details and the available budget.

Q: For an LPTA task order, what criteria are determined to get technically acceptable?

A: Every task order supports a specific PWS. Each PWS contains the technical minimum requirements as well as skill set requirements. Each task order will be unique and the technically minimums will be different for each one.

Q: Recommend retention of “Best Value” along with LPTA for Task order evaluation criteria.

A: USAMS III task order solicitations will either be a trade-off or LPTA. The term best value includes both trade-off and Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA). USAMS is an ordering vehicle used to procure technical skill sets to support the USAMS PWS. Each requirement needs to identify what the minimum skill set requirement is. If a customer desires a trade-off that customer also has to define what skill sets would be of value to the Government to trade for. Trade-off decisions are based on the specific requirement details and the available budget.

Q: Recommend retain “Best Value” along with LPTA (task order evaluation criteria).

LPTA has limitations: Appendix A of DoD Source Selection Procedure; Better Buying

Power 2.0. Make determination at time of task order (BV or LPTA) similar to making

CPFF/FP determination.

ordering vehicle used to procure technical skill sets to support the USAMS PWS. Each requirement needs to identify what the minimum skill set requirement is. If a customer desires a trade-off that customer also has to define what skill sets would be of value to the Government to

Q: Does the 55 CONS anticipate using the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable evaluation method primarily in Task Order RFPs? Would the 55 CONS identify which eval method was used for each of the USAMS II Task Orders? What are the decision criteria in determining eval method selection?

ordering vehicle used to procure technical skill sets to support the USAMS PWS. Each requirement needs to identify what the minimum skill set requirement is. If a customer desires a trade-off that customer also has to define what skill sets would be of value to the Government to budget. USAMS II task orders have been solicited using either trade-off or LPTA.

Q: Evaluation Factors: Moving from Best Value to LPTA engenders risk in two ways, first technically complex tasks and PWSs require very specific guidance or evaluation criteria on what key elements are being evaluated or lacking this the government encourages or could endure technical risk; second, if the qualifications, personnel turnover due to low salary etc.

Currently most USAMS II LPTA Evaluation Criteria consist of: Personnel Requirements, Security Requirements, Technical Requirements; and Cost/Pricing. However, the

Technical Requirements normally consist of a simple statement “to demonstrate the ability to perform all functions detailed in Paragraph 1.5 of the PWS,” and the Cost/Pricing requirement is a statement that LPTA will consist of an evaluation “based on overall lowest priced offer excluding anticipated travel expenses,” while we have seen others state that the price “will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness.”

In the first instance “Paragraph 1.5 of the PWS” in complex LPTA task orders can consist of 45 to 60 tasks/subtask with no prioritization, which in effect prioritizes even the simplest task the same as a more complex and core task. Essentially the offeror ends up writing to the PWS, instead of writing to the evaluation factor.

Currently most USAMS II “Best Value” task orders consist of a Mission Capability/Price trade off and under Mission Capability a “Technical Risk Rating” is undertaken where

“risk of unsuccessful performance” is evaluated. As well the Technical Requirements within a Best Value task order often lists all tasks in descending order of priority or occasionally the “critical” tasks are defined.

Risk on LPTA task orders becomes more manageable, if the supported organization is allowed to define what has been historically needed (number of hours, number of FTE) for successful support of this work. This defining should not preclude offerors from innovations that would allow fewer hours or fewer FTE. But current procedures for

USAMS II literally dictate a specific FTE and labor category bid, precluding offerors from submitting innovative technical solutions other than a specific required number of FTEs.

However, the burden would be upon offerors to substantiate the benefit and ability to accomplish all requirements. If these “historical limits” are not placed on a TO in an LPTA competition, invariably industry will race to what is minimally technically acceptable

(which equals technically acceptable) to try and win the price “shoot out.” This, as witnessed on other IDIQ LPTA contracts for other CCMDs, inevitably comes with employee salary cuts and reduced hours in a Man Year (under TA2S, a Man Year quickly reduced from 1,920 hours to 1,900 to 1,880 to 1,860 and the “normal” is now 1,840 hours).

Companies can only reduce fee rates and benefits to a certain point and then come salary cuts sometimes as much as 30%. Employees accept this to “pay the mortgage” but it is inevitable and followed by employee turnover as employees leave at the first opportunity to get back or closer to their original salary. This turnover “hidden cost” impacts the government and induces performance and schedule risk.

We believe LPTA does not engender risk as described above and would recommend four items be more consistent on LPTA task orders; first cost/price should always be evaluated for “fairness and reasonableness” to reduce execution risk; second, technical evaluation criteria should always either prioritize the tasks or at a minimum list the critical tasks;

third, mission capability/technical risk should be evaluated even more so on LPTA task orders than best value task orders; and fourth, the minimum hours acceptable by the government should be specified in the PWS.

USAMS PWS. Each requirement needs to identify what the minimum skill set requirement is.

If a customer desires a trade-off that customer also has to define what skill sets would be of value to the Government to trade for. Trade-off decisions are based on the specific requirement details and the available budget. The Government is always looking for a more effective way to solicit its requirements and will work to improve on the future task order solicitation process.

Q: As far as price sensitivities, we’ve seen USAMS II start leaning towards the LPTA as the trend. Do you see this as the same way on USAMS III?

A: USAMS III task order solicitations will either be a trade-off or LPTA. If a customer desires a trade-off that customer also has to define what skill sets would be of value to the Government to

Q: Will most USAMS III TO RFPs use LPTA? What will be the Governments criteria for making the decision between LPTA and Best Value approaches on each TO? Will the

Government pursue Best Value for complex and critical support functions?

ordering vehicle used to procure technical skill sets to support the USAMS PWS. Each requirement needs to identify what the minimum skill set requirement is. If a customer desires a trade-off that customer also has to define what skill sets would be of value to the Government to

Q: Best Value vs. LPTA, what are you leaning towards at the task order level? A low price shoot out or a real quality.

ordering vehicle used to procure technical skill sets to support the USAMS PWS. Each requirement needs to identify what the minimum skill set requirement is. If a customer desires a trade-off that customer also has to define what skill sets would be of value to the Government to

Q: LPTA vs. Best Value - We certainly are very price competitive and are not afraid of being cost competitive, but we are scared about the low ballers out there. We think that you can still get a level of price comparison that emphasizes price competitiveness.

ordering vehicle used to procure technical skill sets to support the USAMS PWS. Each requirement needs to identify what the minimum skill set requirement is. If a customer desires a trade-off that customer also has to define what skill sets would be of value to the Government to

Q: TO Level…for reviewing LPTA’s you first rank every proposal by price and evaluate a certain number, correct?

A: Under the current USAMS task order process, every proposal is first evaluated by the technical team. After the technical evaluation is complete, we then rank by price with award going to the lowest priced technically acceptable offeror. The technical is blind to the low price and reviews each technical submission equally. The Government intends to continue with this practice.

Q: For TO evaluation, under what criteria would a “Best Value Tradeoff” be preferable to

LPTA?

A: USAMS is an ordering vehicle used to procure technical skill sets to support the USAMS

PWS. Each requirement needs to identify what the minimum skill set requirement is. If a customer desires a trade-off, that customer also has to define what skill sets would be of value to the Government to trade for. Trade-off decisions are based on the specific requirement details and the available budget. Evaluation criteria are tailored to each requirement.

Q: For a LPTA TO, what criteria will be used to determine technically acceptable? Will the

TO customer be a significant weight of determining technically acceptable?

A: Each task order is an independent requirement and technical criteria will be indentified and prepared specifically addressing the uniqueness of each requirement. Each customer has to identify what is technically acceptable and in the case of a trade-off the customer has to identify the trade-off. The USAMS program office and contracting office then review the documents and together approve the requirement documents prior to solicitation.

Q: Regarding the issuance and award of LPTA task orders; would contracting consider adding the following language to the solicitation:

-Proscription regarding the practice of “buying-in” and unrealistic prices: IAW Basic

Contract USAMS III Contractors are cautioned that unrealistically low proposal prices may be grounds for eliminating a TO proposal from competition either on the basis that the USAMS III contractor does not understand the requirement, or has provided an unrealistic price in relation to the work to be performed or is inconsistent with the offeror’s technical proposal.

-USAMS III Contractors are reminded that FAR 52.264-4 Inspection of Services –Fixed

Price (Aug 1996) and FAR 52.246-5—Inspection of Services Cost-Reimbursement (Apr

1984) are in full force and effect at TO award. Failure to fill labor categories and perform as described in your proposal will result in immediate Government action in accordance with these clauses, including price reductions and possible termination of the contract for default.

**Recent LPTA experience on the ACCESS (HANSCOM AFB) MA IDIQ and the CSMC

(HQ AFSPC) MAC IDIQ has resulted in the low price bidder using pricing techniques as a

“buy in” and subsequently failing to execute the awarded task. ACCESS now incorporates the above language to allow the government to consider price realism in the award decision. We believe it is in the best interest of the government to address “buy in” and unrealistic pricing tactics in advance to increase competition, and to allow for adequate staffing and execution of awarded tasks.

A: Evaluation criteria are tailored to each requirement and the Government is always looking for a more effective ways to solicit its requirements and will work to improve on the future task order solicitation process. The Government will consider suggestions like this prior to USAMS

III task order solicitations and throughout the entire ordering period of the USAMS III contract.