In a proposed rule issued earlier this month, the Department of Defense (“DoD”) seeks to incorporate into the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement (“DFARS”) restrictions on the use of the lowest price technically acceptable (“LPTA”) source selection method from the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) for Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018.  This proposed rule makes clear that these NDAA-imposed restrictions are not going away any time soon, and that DoD contracting officers need to engage in a thorough and reasoned analysis before conducting an LPTA procurement.

Just as its name suggests, the LPTA source selection process prioritizes cost or price over technical capability — the agency will make award to the lowest-priced offeror that presents a technically acceptable proposal.  Typically, agencies use the LPTA process to procure straightforward goods and services such as routine maintenance work or office equipment.  In recent years, however, contractors have complained that agencies employ LPTA selection processes in inappropriate circumstances where qualitative differences really matter and technical superiority is worth a price premium.

The 2017 and 2018 NDAAs attempted to address these concerns by imposing significant limitations on an agency’s ability to employ the LPTA source selection method.  Consistent with the NDAA restrictions, the proposed rule prohibits the use of LPTA procedures to:  (i) procure personal protective equipment or aviation critical safety items when failure of the item could result in combat casualties, (ii) acquire engineering and manufacturing development for major defense acquisition programs where budgetary authority is requested beginning in FY 2019, and (iii) select an auditing contract.  The proposed regulations further provide that the LPTA selection process should be avoided to the maximum extent practicable when acquiring:  (i) knowledge-based services such as those related to information technology and cybersecurity, (ii) personal protective equipment, and (iii) knowledge-based training or logistics services that relate to contingency or other operations outside of the U.S.

And before employing LPTA procedures at all, a contracting officer must determine that each of these conditions is present:

  1. The minimum requirements can be described clearly and comprehensively, and in terms of performance objectives, measures, and standards necessary to determine the acceptability of offerors;
  2. No greater than “minimal” value will be realized from a proposal that exceeds the minimum technical or performance requirements;
  3. The offerors’ proposed technical approaches will require no greater than minimum subjective judgment by the Source Selection Authority (“SSA”) about the desirability of selecting one proposal over another;
  4. The SSA believes with a high degree of confidence that he or she will not identify characteristics or benefits by reviewing the technical proposals of all offerors that would provide value or benefit to the government;
  5. No greater than minimal future innovation or technological advantage will be realized from use of a difference source selection process;
  6. Goods sought to be purchased must be “predominately” expendable in nature, non-technical, or have a short life expectancy;
  7. The contract file must contain a determination that the lowest price reflects the full life-cycle costs of the products or goods being acquired; and
  8. The contracting officer must describe the circumstances justifying the use of the LPTA source selection process and document those considerations in the contract file.

These requirements apply to FAR part 15 negotiated procurements, Federal Supply Schedule orders, commercial item acquisitions, simplified acquisitions, and fair opportunity orders against multiple award indefinite delivery contracts.

Takeaway

The restrictions on the use of LPTA source selection imposed by the 2017 and 2018 NDAAs undoubtedly signals that contracting officers must think long and hard before using the LPTA source selection method.  Although contracting officers are generally afforded a great deal of discretion in their acquisition planning decisions, the large number and relative subjectivity of the factors that contracting officers are required to consider may also make LPTA procurements more vulnerable to successful pre-award protests than they have been in the past.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Hunter Bennett Hunter Bennett

Hunter Bennett regularly represents government contractors in bid protests before the Government Accountability Office and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. He also counsels clients in a wide range of formation and disputes issues. Prior to entering private practice, he served as a…

Hunter Bennett regularly represents government contractors in bid protests before the Government Accountability Office and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. He also counsels clients in a wide range of formation and disputes issues. Prior to entering private practice, he served as a Trial Attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice, where he was a member of the Department’s Bid Protest Team and frequently defended the United States against bid protests filed in the Court of Federal Claims.

During his tenure at the Department of Justice, Hunter served as lead counsel for the United States in dozens of cases involving complex commercial disputes. He also oversaw the litigation of all habeas corpus cases filed by Guantanamo Bay detainees that were pending before the Honorable Gladys Kessler in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and personally tried five detainee habeas cases. Additionally, Hunter briefed and/or argued more than 20 cases in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Hunter began his career as a prosecutor in the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, where he served as lead counsel in over 200 habeas corpus cases filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and successfully briefed and/or argued multiple cases in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

In his spare time, Hunter plays bass guitar in the band Dot Dash, whose song “Shopworn Excuse” was dubbed “a jangly piece of heaven” by USA Today.

Photo of Ryan Burnette Ryan Burnette

Ryan Burnette is a government contracts and technology-focused lawyer that advises on federal contracting compliance requirements and on government and internal investigations that stem from these obligations. Ryan has particular experience with defense and intelligence contracting, as well as with cybersecurity, supply chain…

Ryan Burnette is a government contracts and technology-focused lawyer that advises on federal contracting compliance requirements and on government and internal investigations that stem from these obligations. Ryan has particular experience with defense and intelligence contracting, as well as with cybersecurity, supply chain, artificial intelligence, and software development requirements.

Ryan also advises on Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) compliance, public policy matters, agency disputes, and government cost accounting, drawing on his prior experience in providing overall direction for the federal contracting system to offer insight on the practical implications of regulations. He has assisted industry clients with the resolution of complex civil and criminal investigations by the Department of Justice, and he regularly speaks and writes on government contracts, cybersecurity, national security, and emerging technology topics.

Ryan is especially experienced with:

  • Government cybersecurity standards, including the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP); DFARS 252.204-7012, DFARS 252.204-7020, and other agency cybersecurity requirements; National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) publications, such as NIST SP 800-171; and the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program.
  • Software and artificial intelligence (AI) requirements, including federal secure software development frameworks and software security attestations; software bill of materials requirements; and current and forthcoming AI data disclosure, validation, and configuration requirements, including unique requirements that are applicable to the use of large language models (LLMs) and dual use foundation models.
  • Supply chain requirements, including Section 889 of the FY19 National Defense Authorization Act; restrictions on covered semiconductors and printed circuit boards; Information and Communications Technology and Services (ICTS) restrictions; and federal exclusionary authorities, such as matters relating to the Federal Acquisition Security Council (FASC).
  • Information handling, marking, and dissemination requirements, including those relating to Covered Defense Information (CDI) and Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI).
  • Federal Cost Accounting Standards and FAR Part 31 allocation and reimbursement requirements.

Prior to joining Covington, Ryan served in the Office of Federal Procurement Policy in the Executive Office of the President, where he focused on the development and implementation of government-wide contracting regulations and administrative actions affecting more than $400 billion dollars’ worth of goods and services each year.  While in government, Ryan helped develop several contracting-related Executive Orders, and worked with White House and agency officials on regulatory and policy matters affecting contractor disclosure and agency responsibility determinations, labor and employment issues, IT contracting, commercial item acquisitions, performance contracting, schedule contracting and interagency acquisitions, competition requirements, and suspension and debarment, among others.  Additionally, Ryan was selected to serve on a core team that led reform of security processes affecting federal background investigations for cleared federal employees and contractors in the wake of significant issues affecting the program.  These efforts resulted in the establishment of a semi-autonomous U.S. Government agency to conduct and manage background investigations.