48 C.F.R. § 15.101-2

15.101-2 Lowest price technically acceptable source selection process.

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

(a) The lowest price technically acceptable source selection process is appropriate when best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price.

(b) When using the lowest price technically acceptable process, the following apply:

(1) The evaluation factors and significant subfactors that establish the requirements of acceptability shall be set forth in the solicitation. Solicitations shall specify that award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. If the contracting officer documents the file pursuant to 15.304(c)(3)(iii), past performance need not be an evaluation factor in lowest price technically acceptable source selections. If the contracting officer elects to consider past performance as an evaluation factor, it shall be evaluated in accordance with 15.305. However, the comparative assessment in 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply. If the contracting officer determines that a small business' past performance is not acceptable, the matter shall be referred to the Small Business Administration for a Certificate of Competency determination, in accordance with the procedures contained in subpart 19.6 and 15 U.S.C. 637(b)(7)).

(2) Tradeoffs are not permitted.

(3) Proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-cost/price factors.

(4) Exchanges may occur (see 15.306).

(c) Except for DoD, in accordance with section 880 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232, 41 U.S.C. 3701 Note), the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process shall only be used when—

(1) The agency can comprehensively and clearly describe the minimum requirements in terms of performance objectives, measures, and standards that will be used to determine the acceptability of offers;

(2) The agency would realize no, or minimal, value from a proposal that exceeds the minimum technical or performance requirements;

(3) The agency believes the technical proposals will require no, or minimal, subjective judgment by the source selection authority as to the desirability of one offeror's proposal versus a competing proposal;

(4) The agency has a high degree of confidence that reviewing the technical proposals of all offerors would not result in the identification of characteristics that could provide value or benefit to the agency;

(5) The agency determined that the lowest price reflects the total cost, including operation and support, of the product(s) or service(s) being acquired; and

(6) The contracting officer documents the contract file describing the circumstances that justify the use of the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process.

(d) Except for DoD, in accordance with section 880 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232, 41 U.S.C. 3701 Note), contracting officers shall avoid, to the maximum extent practicable, using the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process in the case of a procurement that is predominantly for the acquisition of—

(1) Information technology services, cybersecurity services, systems engineering and technical assistance services, advanced electronic testing, audit or audit readiness services, health care services and records, telecommunications devices and services, or other knowledge-based professional services;

(2) Personal protective equipment; or

(3) Knowledge-based training or logistics services in contingency operations or other operations outside the United States, including in Afghanistan or Iraq.

[62 FR 51230, Sept. 30, 1997, as amended at 64 FR 72443, Dec. 27, 1999; 74 FR 2746, Jan. 15, 2009; 86 FR 3682, Jan. 14, 2021]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: Universal Marine Co., K.S.C. v. United States, 120 Fed. Cl. 240 (Fed. Cl. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Universal Marine Co., K.S.C. v. United States, 120 Fed. Cl. 240 (Fed. Cl. 2015). · cites it 2× “§ 3551 ; Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection, 48 C.F.R. § 15.101-2 ; Standing. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND FINAL ORDER BRADEN, Judge.”

Level 3 Commc'ns, LLC v. United States, 129 Fed. Cl. 487 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “48 C.F.R. § 15.101-2 FAR 15.305(a), under the heading “Proposal Evaluation,” provides: Proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the offeror’s ability to perform the prospective contract successfully.”

Metro. Van & Storage, Inc. v. United States, 92 Fed. Cl. 232 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “” 48 C.F.R. § 15.101-2 (b)(l) (2009); see also Carahsoft Tech.”

Dismas Charities, Inc. v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 191 (Fed. Cl. 2004). “” 48 C.F.R. § 15.101-2 (a) and (b)(2). Ms. Martin’s memorandum instructed the panel members to articulate a reason for all ratings, not just those higher than a three.”

Ideal Indus., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018). “48 C.F.R. § 15.101-2 (a). 2 Section M of the Solicitation lists each of the evaluation factors.”

Slaughter v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021). “Plaintiff also articulates several other objections, including that NASA “incorrectly interpreted [ 48 C.F.R. § 15.101-2 ] to mean they could choose an awardee based on an evaluated equation and award to that contractor using a different equation,” id.”

Rick Aviation, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2026). “at 9 (citing 48 C.F.R. § 15.101-2 ). DLA intended to make awards without discussions.”

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.