| Tweet |
Custom Search
|
|
|
||
 **********************************************************************
NOTE: (1) Past experience is used as an indicator of an offeror's
ability to perform quality work in a timely manner in the future. (2)
An offeror's ability to perform is often indicated by his ability to
plan and anticipate problems.
**********************************************************************
b. Price. A price breakdown in a format dictated by the
government can be useful to the contracting officer to confirm
understanding of scope, price reasonableness and assess technical
evaluation results.
4. Proposal Evaluation. All offeror's receive equal consideration
and the evaluation must be demonstrably based on the stated evaluation
criteria included in the solicitation. Preestablished standards can be
helpful in facilitating the evaluators process and encouraging
development of consensus among the evaluators. Selection of one of two
evaluation methods is necessary; Best Value or Low Price Technically
Acceptable (LPTA).
BEST VALUE - This method allows great discretion to the
Government. Award is made to the proposer who offers the "best value"
to the government, price and other technical factors listed in the
solicitation considered. Note: Using this method allows award to be
made to other than the low priced proposer.
LOW PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE (LPTA) - This method offers
little discretion to the government. Once proposals are evaluated
technically, award must be made to the low priced technically
acceptable proposer regardless of the technical ranking or superiority
of one proposer over another.
**********************************************************************
NOTE: Best Value is preferable since it offers the government the
opportunity to use discretion and seek value. The same amount of
effort is required, yet LPTA severely limits your options. If LPTA is
used, award must be made to the low bidder, no matter what the
technical ranking. In addition to limiting your ability to choose a
clearly superior firm, you risk the chance of the superior firm not
competing or the inferior firm increasing its price.
**********************************************************************
5. Evaluation documentation. Documentation supporting evaluation
conclusions must be rational, consistent, and be based on the
information presented by the offerors in their proposals. All
conclusions must be supported by facts. Conclusions justified
exclusively on numerical point scores are not acceptable.
|
 
|
|
|
||
