As we noted in a blog post in December 2016, “LPTA Out, Fixed Price Contracts In,” the Department of Defense (DoD) has been moving to restrict the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) evaluation methodology, which requires award to the lowest-price offeror that meets the minimum requirements regardless of whether more expensive solutions are optimal.  Further, in 2016 legislation went into effect requiring that limitations on the use of LPTA evaluations be codified in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS).

New Restrictions on LPTA Evaluations

On September 26, 2019, DoD issued a final rule that amends the DFARS to implement that legislation.  The new rule, which was mandated by Section 813 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2017, as amended by section 822 of the NDAA for 2018, establishes that the LPTA evaluation methodology shall only be used when the following conditions are met:
Continue Reading DoD Implements Statutory Restrictions on LPTA Evaluations

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17 NDAA), signed into law by President Obama on December 23, includes limitations on a low price evaluation methodology and a preference for fixed price contracts that could have a significant impact on the way the Department of Defense (DoD) procures goods and services in the coming years. The FY17 NDAA also featured changes to the task order protest jurisdiction, which we outlined in this blog post.

Continue Reading LPTA Out, Fixed Price Contracts In

In most federal procurements, regulations require procuring agencies to consider an offeror’s past performance in evaluating proposals. However, while the consideration of past performance may be a standard element of an evaluation, what an agency actually considers as part of that past performance evaluation is not set in stone. Agencies can consider different types of past performance, and weigh the importance of different elements of past performance in various ways, changing from procurement to procurement. Agencies have the discretion to choose the kinds of past performances it will review, which personnel are relevant to an evaluation, how many references should be provided, and the cut-off date for each past performance reference. As long as the evaluation is reasonable, it is generally acceptable. However, if the agency’s chosen method or execution of its past performance evaluation is ultimately unreasonable, a challenge to the evaluation may lead to a sustained protest.

Two recent U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) bid protest decisions help draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable past performance evaluations. The recent decision in Logistics Management International, Inc. demonstrates that it is permissible for an agency to ignore the past performances of key individual personnel, and instead only concentrate on a company’s previous performances as a whole. In denying that protest, GAO found that it is within an agency’s discretion to define the scope of its own past performance review. On the other hand, in the recent decision of Patricio Enterprises Inc., GAO decided it was unreasonable for the agency to essentially penalize an offeror simply because it provided more past performance references than the competing contractor.


Continue Reading Learning from Bid Protests: Agencies Generally Set their Own Rules in Past Performance Evaluations