C.F.R. » Title 48 » CHAPTER 1—FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION › SUBCHAPTER C—CONTRACTING METHODS AND CONTRACT TYPES › PART 15—CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION › Subpart 15.1—Source Selection Processes and Techniques

48 C.F.R. § 15.101-1

15.101-1 Tradeoff process.

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(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
Cited in 23 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2000–2022 · leading case: Glenn Defense Marine (Asia), PTE Ltd. v. United States
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Glenn Defense Marine (Asia), PTE Ltd. v. United States (2013) cafc · 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 Defense Marine (Asia), PTE Ltd. v. States (2012) uscfc · 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 Construction Co., Inc. v. United States (2013) uscfc · 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 Transportation Security, Inc. v. United States (2011) uscfc · 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 (2012) uscfc “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…”
UnitedHealth Military & Veterans Services, LLC v. United States (2017) uscfc “” (citing 48 C.F.R. § 15.101-1 (b)(1) (2011); 48 C.”
One Largo Metro, Llc v. United States (2013) uscfc · 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 (2013) uscfc “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 & Engineering, Inc. v. United States (2000) uscfc · 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 Company, K.S.C. v. United States (2015) uscfc “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.”
Linc Government Services, LLC v. United States (2012) uscfc “101-l(e), 48 C.F.R. § 15.101-1 (e) (allowing tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors); 15.”
Texas ex rel. Texas Workforce Commission v. United States (2017) uscfc “” (citing 48 C.F.R. § 15.101-1 (b)(1) (2011); 48 C.”
Show all 23 citing cases →
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.