Skip to content

Bid decision

Should I bid LPTA?

Under a lowest price technically acceptable source selection, tradeoffs are not permitted. Award goes to the lowest evaluated price among the proposals that meet the stated acceptability standards. Everything you build above acceptable is money you spent to lose.

So the bid decision is short, and it is mostly arithmetic. These six questions ask what the solicitation says, who buys, what they buy, and whether your price can reach the bottom of the market.

One result is a question for the contracting officer rather than a bid or a no-bid. Both the FAR and the DFARS restrict where this method applies at all.

6 questions

Answer as your situation actually is, not as you would like it to be. Nothing is stored and nothing is sent anywhere.

Step 1 of 6

0% answered

What does Section M state as the basis for award?

Section M is "Evaluation factors for award" in the uniform contract format.

This is guidance, not a determination. A result here is a reading of what you told us, against rules that are cited on this page so you can check them. It is written to be generally correct, and it still cannot know your specific use case or every variable that applies to you. Every result is therefore an explanation of how a rule works, offered as a suggestion, and never an official or definitive answer. It is not legal advice, it is not a compliance opinion, and it does not bind a contracting officer. The solicitation in front of you governs. Where the two disagree, the solicitation is right and this page is wrong.

Every question and every result, written out

Nothing on this page is hidden behind the interactive version. Read the whole thing here, link straight to any result, or check the routing for yourself.

The questions

Show

  1. 1. What does Section M state as the basis for award?

    Section M is "Evaluation factors for award" in the uniform contract format.

    • Lowest price technically acceptable.
    • Best-value tradeoff.
    • Both appear, or two paragraphs disagree.
    • We have not read Section M yet.

  2. 2. Which agency is buying?

    The restrictions on this method differ by buyer, and the difference is large.

    • The Department of War, or one of its components.
    • A civilian federal agency.
    • We do not know, or the solicitation does not say.

  3. 3. What is the procurement predominantly for?

    • IT services, cybersecurity, systems engineering and technical assistance, advanced electronic testing, or other knowledge-based professional services.
    • Personal protective equipment, or an aviation critical safety item.
    • Engineering and manufacturing development for a major defense acquisition program.
    • Audit or audit-readiness services.
    • Health care services and records, or telecommunications devices and services.
    • Goods that are expendable, nontechnical, or short-lived.

  4. 4. Can you meet every stated acceptability standard, exactly as written?

    Under this method a proposal is acceptable or it is not. Nothing in between counts.

    • Yes, all of them.
    • There are one or two we cannot meet.
    • Section M does not state the standards clearly.

  5. 5. Can you be the lowest evaluated price and still perform the work?

    • Yes, with margin.
    • Only by cutting scope, or by accepting a loss.
    • No. Somebody will always be cheaper.
    • We have not priced it.

  6. 6. Where does your win normally come from?

    • Price. We are structurally the low-cost provider.
    • Technical discriminators, innovation, or the people we field.
    • Incumbency and a strong past performance record.
    • A set-aside, or a socioeconomic status.

The results

Show

Each of these is an explanation of how a rule works, written to be generally correct and offered as a suggestion. None of them is an official or definitive answer, because none of them can know your specific use case or every variable that applies to you. The solicitation in front of you governs.

Read Section M first. Nothing else on this page matters yet.

The basis for award decides what kind of proposal you write. Section M states it, so no bid decision is possible before somebody reads Section M.

A tradeoff proposal and a lowest price technically acceptable proposal are different documents. One argues for the value of an approach. The other proves acceptability at the lowest price and stops. A team that starts without that answer rewrites later.

Section M takes minutes to read. It is the cheapest step in the whole pursuit.

What to do

  1. Open Section M and find the basis for award.
  2. Record whether it names a tradeoff or a lowest-price method.
  3. Copy the acceptability standards into your compliance matrix.
  4. Return to this page with the answer.

The rules behind this result

FAR 15.101-1
Describes the tradeoff process, which allows award to other than the lowest priced offeror.
FAR 15.101-2
Describes the lowest price technically acceptable process, under which tradeoffs are not permitted.

This is a tradeoff, not an LPTA. Write a different proposal.

Section M states a best-value tradeoff. The government may pay more for a better proposal, so your discriminators are worth the page space you give them.

Under a tradeoff the solicitation must state all evaluation factors and their relative importance. It must also state how the non-price factors combined compare to price. The three options are significantly more important, approximately equal, or significantly less important. That sentence is your page budget. Read it before you outline.

The higher-priced offer can win, but only when the government documents why the benefit merits the cost. Your job is to make that rationale easy to write.

What to do

  1. Find the relative-importance sentence in Section M.
  2. Allocate pages in proportion to the stated importance, not evenly.
  3. Name your discriminators in the language Section M uses.
  4. Give the evaluator the tradeoff rationale in your own words.

The rules behind this result

FAR 15.101-1(b)(2)
Requires the solicitation to state how the non-price factors combined compare to price.
FAR 15.101-1(c)
Requires the benefits of a higher priced proposal to merit the additional cost, with the rationale documented.

Submit a question before you price anything.

A solicitation that states two bases for award is ambiguous on the one point that governs your whole proposal strategy. An unclear acceptability standard does the same.

This is not a technicality. Both rules make a clear description of the minimum requirements a condition of using this method at all. The FAR states it for civilian agencies. The DFARS states it for the Department of War. An acquisition that cannot describe acceptability has not met the condition.

Ask the question in writing, before the question deadline, and ask it plainly. Which paragraph governs, and what exactly makes a proposal acceptable. An amendment that answers it helps every offeror, including you.

Do not make a silent judgment call and price against your own reading. A wrong guess here is not a scoring risk. It is the wrong document.

What to do

  1. Write the question before the question deadline.
  2. Quote both paragraphs by number in the question.
  3. Ask which one governs the award decision.
  4. Ask for the acceptability standard for each factor.
  5. Hold pricing until the answer or the amendment arrives.

The rules behind this result

FAR 15.101-2(c)(1)
Except for the Department of War, requires the agency to describe the minimum requirements comprehensively and clearly.
DFARS 215.101-2-70(a)(1)(i)
Permits the method only when the agency describes the minimum requirements clearly and comprehensively.

The DFARS prohibits this method for this work.

DFARS 215.101-2-70(b) prohibits the lowest price technically acceptable process for certain defense acquisitions, and the category you selected is one of them.

The prohibitions are specific. A contracting officer shall not use this method for personal protective equipment or an aviation critical safety item. That prohibition applies when the requiring activity advises that the level of quality, or a failure, could result in combat casualties.

A contracting officer shall not use the method for engineering and manufacturing development on a major defense acquisition program. That prohibition covers a program with budget authority requested from fiscal year 2019. A contracting officer shall not use the method for an auditing contract.

A prohibition is not a discretionary preference. Raise it as a question to the contracting officer before the question deadline, quote the paragraph, and let the agency respond.

Be careful with the first prohibition. It turns on what the requiring activity advises about combat casualties, and you cannot see that advice. Ask rather than assert.

What to do

  1. Quote DFARS 215.101-2-70(b) in a written question.
  2. Name the exact category your work falls into.
  3. Ask the contracting officer to confirm the basis for award.
  4. Send it before the question deadline.
  5. Decide whether to bid after the answer or the amendment arrives.

The rules behind this result

DFARS 215.101-2-70(b)(1)
Prohibits the method for personal protective equipment or an aviation critical safety item. It applies where the requiring activity advises that quality or failure could result in combat casualties.
DFARS 215.101-2-70(b)(2)
Prohibits the method for engineering and manufacturing development for a major defense acquisition program with budget authority requested beginning in fiscal year 2019.
DFARS 215.101-2-70(b)(3)
Prohibits the method for an auditing contract, and requires a best-value decision instead.

The rule tells the buyer to avoid this method for this work.

For the category you selected, the rule tells the contracting officer to avoid this process to the maximum extent practicable. That is a reason to ask a question. It is not a reason to assume the solicitation is invalid.

DFARS 215.101-2-70(a)(2) names five categories for the Department of War. They are IT services, cybersecurity services, systems engineering and technical assistance, advanced electronic testing, and other knowledge-based professional services. FAR 15.101-2(d) names the same group for civilian agencies. It adds audit and audit-readiness services, health care services and records, and telecommunications devices and services.

Read the exact words. "Avoid, to the maximum extent practicable" is a direction to the contracting officer, not a right you hold. Many such solicitations stand. The value here is the question you can now ask, and the seriousness the agency will give it.

Ask, then decide on price. The answer may change the acquisition. It may also tell you the agency considered the point and moved on, which is itself useful before you spend on a bid.

What to do

  1. Cite the paragraph that applies to your buyer, not the other one.
  2. Ask whether the agency considered a tradeoff for this requirement.
  3. Send the question before the question deadline.
  4. Price the bid on the assumption that the method stands.

The rules behind this result

DFARS 215.101-2-70(a)(2)(i)
Directs Department of War contracting officers to avoid the method, to the maximum extent practicable, for knowledge-based professional services and the related categories named there.
FAR 15.101-2(d)
Except for the Department of War, directs contracting officers to avoid the method. The list covers the named services, personal protective equipment, and knowledge-based training or logistics in contingency operations.

Price it, then come back. The bid decision is arithmetic.

Award goes to the lowest evaluated price among acceptable proposals. An unpriced bid decision is therefore a guess about the only number that decides the award.

You do not need a full basis of estimate to answer this. You need enough to know whether you are near the bottom of the market or far from it. A rough order of magnitude, built honestly, answers the question in an afternoon.

Price it against the acceptability standards and nothing more. A price that carries your usual technical margin is not the price this competition selects on.

What to do

  1. Build a rough order of magnitude against the stated standards only.
  2. Strip every feature that exceeds an acceptability standard.
  3. Compare the result to any published historical award price.
  4. Return to this page with a number.

The rules behind this result

FAR 15.101-2(b)(1)
Requires award on the basis of the lowest evaluated price among proposals meeting the acceptability standards.

Bid it, and strip everything above acceptable.

You can reach the lowest evaluated price and you can meet every acceptability standard, which is the only combination that wins under this method.

Now write a different proposal from the one your team knows. Prove acceptability against each stated standard, in the order Section M states them, and stop. There is no credit above the line and there is no tradeoff to argue for.

The discipline is unfamiliar and it is where teams lose these. A gold-plated technical volume raises your price, earns nothing, and hands the award to a leaner competitor who read the same Section M.

Keep one thing rich. Compliance evidence. An evaluator who cannot find your proof of a standard may rate you unacceptable. Unacceptable is fatal here. A weak narrative is not.

What to do

  1. Map each acceptability standard to one place in your proposal.
  2. Cut every feature that exceeds a standard.
  3. Cut the price the cut features carried.
  4. State compliance plainly, in the words Section M uses.
  5. Check the price arithmetic twice before you submit.

The rules behind this result

FAR 15.101-2(b)(2)
Tradeoffs are not permitted.
FAR 15.101-2(b)(3)
Proposals are evaluated for acceptability but are not ranked using the non-cost or price factors.

No-bid this one, and say why in writing.

Your value sits above the acceptability line, or your price sits above the market. This method permits no tradeoffs, so neither one wins the award.

This is the result teams argue with, so here is the arithmetic. Award goes to the lowest evaluated price among acceptable proposals. Your discriminators are not ranked. Your past performance may not even be an evaluation factor. A better proposal at a higher price loses to a worse proposal at a lower one, by design.

A no-bid is a real decision and it deserves a record. Write down the reason, the date and the price gap. That note stops the same pursuit from re-entering your pipeline next quarter. It also tells you whether your cost structure is the thing to fix.

Look for the tradeoff work instead. The capability you cannot sell here is the capability that earns pages somewhere else.

What to do

  1. Record the no-bid decision with the reason and the price gap.
  2. Tell the capture lead which acceptability standard you could not meet, when that was the cause.
  3. Redirect the bid budget to a tradeoff pursuit.
  4. Re-check the same agency for its next tradeoff solicitation.

The rules behind this result

FAR 15.101-2(b)(2)
Tradeoffs are not permitted.
FAR 15.101-2(b)(1)
Past performance need not be an evaluation factor, and the comparative assessment in FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply.

How the answers route

Show

The rules below run in order. The first one whose conditions hold decides the result. When none of them holds, the weighted answers decide, and the result defaults to Read Section M first. Nothing else on this page matters yet..

  1. The basis for award governs everything else, and nobody has read it yet. See that result.
  2. Section M states a tradeoff, so this is not an LPTA question at all. See that result.
  3. An ambiguous basis for award, or an unclear acceptability standard, is a question for the contracting officer before it is a bid decision. See that result.
  4. DFARS 215.101-2-70(b)(1) prohibits the method for this category. See that result.
  5. DFARS 215.101-2-70(b)(2) prohibits the method for this category. See that result.
  6. DFARS 215.101-2-70(b)(3) prohibits the method for an auditing contract. See that result.
  7. DFARS 215.101-2-70(a)(2)(i) directs the contracting officer to avoid the method here. See that result.
  8. FAR 15.101-2(d)(1) directs the contracting officer to avoid the method here. See that result.
  9. FAR 15.101-2(d)(1) names audit and audit-readiness services in the avoid list. See that result.
  10. FAR 15.101-2(d)(1) names health care services and records, and telecommunications devices and services. See that result.
  11. FAR 15.101-2(d)(2) names personal protective equipment in the avoid list. See that result.
  12. Tradeoffs are not permitted, so a standard you cannot meet removes you regardless of price. See that result.
  13. Price is the award criterion, and you do not have one yet. See that result.
  14. Award goes to the lowest evaluated price, and you cannot reach it. See that result.
  15. You clear every acceptability standard and you reach the lowest price. That is the whole test. See that result.

Common questions

Show

What does LPTA mean in government contracting?

LPTA is the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process at FAR 15.101-2. The government sets acceptability standards in the solicitation. It evaluates each proposal as acceptable or unacceptable against them. It then awards to the lowest evaluated price among the acceptable proposals. Tradeoffs are not permitted and proposals are not ranked on the non-price factors.

When is a contracting officer not allowed to use LPTA?

DFARS 215.101-2-70(b) prohibits three cases for the Department of War. The first is personal protective equipment or an aviation critical safety item. It applies where the requiring activity advises that quality or failure could result in combat casualties. The second is engineering and manufacturing development on a major defense acquisition program with budget authority requested from fiscal year 2019. The third is an auditing contract. Separately, DFARS 215.101-2-70(a)(2) and FAR 15.101-2(d) tell contracting officers to avoid the method to the maximum extent practicable. That direction covers IT services, cybersecurity, systems engineering and technical assistance, advanced electronic testing and other knowledge-based professional services.

Do the FAR conditions on LPTA apply to defense contracts?

No. FAR 15.101-2(c) and (d) both open with an express carve-out for the Department of War. Defense acquisitions follow DFARS 215.101-2-70 instead, which sets eight conditions in paragraph (a)(1) and carries its own avoid list and prohibitions. Quoting the FAR paragraphs to a defense contracting officer quotes the text that expressly does not apply.

Does past performance count under LPTA?

Not necessarily. Under FAR 15.101-2(b)(1) past performance need not be an evaluation factor at all. Where the contracting officer does include it, the comparative assessment in FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply. An incumbent should not assume its record carries weight in this competition.

Need an answer that binds?

Everything above explains how the rule reads. It cannot tell you how the rule lands on your contract, and that is the question worth paying someone for. Tell us what you are looking at and we will point you toward counsel who works in this area, rather than guess at it.
Ask about a referral

The long form

A quiz compresses. These entries do not.

Silas™ extracts the stated basis for award from Section M and surfaces it at the pursuit-decision stage, before anyone spends a bid budget.

Run this against the solicitation on your desk.

A quiz answers from what you can tell it. The version that decides a bid reads the actual document, against the actual profile of the company bidding it.
Talk to Vortex Computation™