(a) A tradeoff process is appropriate when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror.
(b) When using a tradeoff process, the following apply:
(1) All evaluation factors and significant subfactors that will affect contract award and their relative importance shall be clearly stated in the solicitation; and
(2) The solicitation shall state whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than, approximately equal to, or significantly less important than cost or price.
(c) This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented in the file in accordance with 15.406.
Notes of Decisions
Glenn Def. Marine (Asia), PTE Ltd. v. United States, 720 F.3d 901 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
· cites it 2× “3 3 48 C.F.R. § 15.101-1 states: (a) A tradeoff process is appropriate when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror.”
Glenn Def. Marine (Asia), PTE Ltd. v. States, 105 Fed. Cl. 541 (Fed. Cl. 2012).
· cites it 4× “” The FAR at 48 C.F.R. § 15.101-1 describes the best value process as: (a) A tradeoff process is appropriate when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror.”
Caddell Constr. Co., Inc. v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 49 (Fed. Cl. 2013).
· cites it 3× “The FAR at 48 C.F.R. § 15.101-1 describes the procedures that agencies should employ in conducting a trade-off process, as follows: (a) A tradeoff process is appropriate when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced…”
FirstLine Transp. Sec., Inc. v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 359 (Fed. Cl. 2011).
· cites it 2× “Compare 48 C.F.R. § 15.101-1 (stating that a tradeoff analysis requires the government to balance the price of proposals against non-price factors in accordance with the solicitation), with id.”
CBY Design Builders v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 303 (Fed. Cl. 2012).
“Since these tradeoffs by definition are decisions whether a lower price justifies accepting lower technical quality, or higher technical quality warrants paying a higher price, see 48 C.F.R. § 15.101-1 (a), (e), they require the possibility that there may be differences in price…”
One Largo Metro, Llc v. United States, 109 Fed. Cl. 39 (Fed. Cl. 2013).
· cites it 2× “(b) When using a tradeoff process, the following apply: (1) All evaluation factors and significant subfactors that will affect contract award and their relative importance shall be clearly stated in the solicitation; and (2) The solicitation shall state whether all evaluation…”
Supreme Foodservice Gmbh v. United States, 109 Fed. Cl. 369 (Fed. Cl. 2013).
“The solicitation stated that because the procurement would use the trade-off process specified in 48 C.F.R. § 15.101-1 , the government “may accept other than the lowest priced proposal as the overall best value.”
Unified Architecture & Eng'g, Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed. Cl. 56 (Fed. Cl. 2000).
· cites it 2× “See 48 C.F.R. § 15.101-1 (b)(1) (1998). Best value awards allow the government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal where the perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal merit the additional costs.”
Universal Marine Co., K.S.C. v. United States, 120 Fed. Cl. 240 (Fed. Cl. 2015).
“There are two kinds of “best value" selection processes: the “best value tradeoff,” pursuant to 48 C.F.R. § 15.101-1 , and the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (“LPTA”), pursuant to 48 C.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.