C.F.R. » Title 48 » CHAPTER 1—FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION › SUBCHAPTER C—CONTRACTING METHODS AND CONTRACT TYPES › PART 15—CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION › Subpart 15.3—Source Selection

48 C.F.R. § 15.305

15.305 Proposal evaluation.

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

(a) Proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the offeror's ability to perform the prospective contract successfully. An agency shall evaluate competitive proposals and then assess their relative qualities solely on the factors and subfactors specified in the solicitation. Evaluations may be conducted using any rating method or combination of methods, including color or adjectival ratings, numerical weights, and ordinal rankings. The relative strengths, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and risks supporting proposal evaluation shall be documented in the contract file.

(1) Cost or price evaluation. Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. Therefore, when contracting on a firm-fixed-price or fixed-price with economic price adjustment basis, comparison of the proposed prices will usually satisfy the requirement to perform a price analysis, and a cost analysis need not be performed. In limited situations, a cost analysis may be appropriate to establish reasonableness of the otherwise successful offeror's price (see 15.403-1(c)(1)(i)(C)). When contracting on a cost-reimbursement basis, evaluations shall include a cost realism analysis to determine what the Government should realistically expect to pay for the proposed effort, the offeror's understanding of the work, and the offeror's ability to perform the contract. Cost realism analyses may also be used on fixed-price incentive contracts or, in exceptional cases, on other competitive fixed-price-type contracts (see 15.404-1(d)(3)). (See 37.115 for uncompensated overtime evaluation.) The contracting officer shall document the cost or price evaluation.

(2) Past performance evaluation. (i) Past performance information is one indicator of an offeror's ability to perform the contract successfully. The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor's performance shall be considered. This comparative assessment of past performance information is separate from the responsibility determination required under subpart 9.1.

(ii) The solicitation shall describe the approach for evaluating past performance, including evaluating offerors with no relevant performance history, and shall provide offerors an opportunity to identify past or current contracts (including Federal, State, and local government and private) for efforts similar to the Government requirement. The solicitation shall also authorize offerors to provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror corrective actions. The Government shall consider this information, as well as information obtained from any other sources, when evaluating the offeror past performance. The source selection authority shall determine the relevance of similar past performance information.

(iii) The evaluation should take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition.

(iv) In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

(v) The evaluation should include the past performance of offerors in complying with subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns (see subpart 19.7).

(vi) For offerors that are joint ventures, the evaluation shall take into account past performance of the joint venture. If the joint venture does not demonstrate past performance for award, the contracting officer shall consider the past performance of each party to the joint venture.

(3) Technical evaluation. When tradeoffs are performed (see 15.101-1), the source selection records shall include—

(i) An assessment of each offeror's ability to accomplish the technical requirements; and

(ii) A summary, matrix, or quantitative ranking, along with appropriate supporting narrative, of each technical proposal using the evaluation factors.

(4) Cost information. Cost information may be provided to members of the technical evaluation team in accordance with agency procedures.

(5) Small business subcontracting evaluation. Solicitations must be structured to give offers from small business concerns the highest rating for the evaluation factors in 15.304(c)(3)(ii) and (c)(4).

(b) The source selection authority may reject all proposals received in response to a solicitation, if doing so is in the best interest of the Government.

(c) For restrictions on the use of support contractor personnel in proposal evaluation, see 37.203(d).

[62 FR 51230, Sept. 30, 1997, as amended at 63 FR 36121, July 1, 1998; 64 FR 51842, 51850, Sept. 24, 1999; 65 FR 46054, July 26, 2000; 74 FR 65615, Dec. 10, 2009; 79 FR 61750, Oct. 14, 2014; 84 FR 27496, June 12, 2019; 87 FR 58223, Sept. 23, 2022]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 103 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: FirstLine Transp. Sec., Inc. v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 359 (Fed. Cl. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
FirstLine Transp. Sec., Inc. v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 359 (Fed. Cl. 2011). · cites it 4× “FirstLine has submitted no evidence, however, demonstrating that the source selection team had obtained any information related to Akal’s contract at PHX in connection with its review of the offerors’ proposals. FirstLine notes that under the RFP, the government “reserves the…”
Tech Sys., Inc. v. United States, 98 Fed. Cl. 228 (Fed. Cl. 2011). · cites it 3× “First, while the FAR requires that the “currency and relevance” of past performance information “shall be considered” in these evaluations, 48 C.F.R. § 15.305 (a)(2)(i), and that the solicitation “shall describe the approach for evaluating past performance.”
By Light Prof'l IT Servs., Inc. v. United States, 131 Fed. Cl. 358 (Fed. Cl. 2017). · cites it 3× “Third, By Light alleges that the USACE erred in upgrading the rating regarding the relevancy of Tribal-eo’s past performance under the Solicitation’s Past Performance factor to a “relevant” rating, in violation of 48 C.F.R. § 15.305 (a)(2)(iv). Id. at 18-21 .”
Info. Sciences Corp. v. United States, 73 Fed. Cl. 70 (Fed. Cl. 2006). · cites it 3× “”); see also 48 C.F.R. § 15.305 (a) (“An agency shall evaluate competitive proposals and then assess their relative qualities solely on the factors and subfactors specified in the solicitation.”
Enhanced Vets. Solutions, Inc. v. United States, 131 Fed. Cl. 565 (Fed. Cl. 2017). · cites it 2× “) at 22 (citing 48 C.F.R. § 15.305 (a), (d)). Defendant explains that the roll-up approach served the purpose of ensuring that significant weaknesses and deficiencies were not overlooked in the overall factor evaluation, as might be the ease had the agency followed a method…”
Westech Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. 272 (Fed. Cl. 2007). · cites it 3× “” 48 C.F.R. § 15.305 (a)(2)®. As *277 such, past performance evaluations would examine “[t]he currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in [the] contractor’s performance.”
Univ. Rsch. Co. v. United States, 65 Fed. Cl. 500 (Fed. Cl. 2005). · cites it 3× “305 for the proposition that more relevant past performance must be given greater weight in the past performance evaluation: 48 C.F.R. § 15.305 (a)(2)(i) and § 15.305(a)(2)(ii).”
PHT Supply Corp. v. United States, 71 Fed. Cl. 1 (Fed. Cl. 2006). · cites it 3× “48 C.F.R. § 15.305 (a)(2)(ii) (2005) (emphasis added).”
Vantage Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 59 Fed. Cl. 1 (Fed. Cl. 2003). · cites it 4× “19, 1998); see 48 C.F.R. § 15.305 (a)(2)(i), (ii) (2002).”
SDS Int'l v. United States, 48 Fed. Cl. 759 (Fed. Cl. 2001). · cites it 3× “” 48 C.F.R. § 15.305 (a)(2)(iii). While intervenor as an entity did not have experience that was directly relevant to the F-4 training, some of its personnel did, and for the SSA to ignore that experience would have violated the terms of the FAR.”
Fort Carson Support Servs. v. United States, 71 Fed. Cl. 571 (Fed. Cl. 2006). · cites it 2× “But the reason that strengths and weaknesses are identified, and must be documented in an evaluation, see 48 C.F.R. § 15.305 (a), is to help ensure that the evaluations are thoughtful.”
MORI Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 503 (Fed. Cl. 2011). · cites it 2× “’s Order (September 21, 2011) (“Pl.’s Supp’l Br.”) at 10-12.”
Show all 103 citing cases →
— 48 C.F.R. § 15.305(a)(1) — 1 case
Bilfinger Berger AG Sede Secondaria Italiana v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl. 96 (Fed. Cl. 2010).
— 48 C.F.R. § 15.305(a)(2)(i) — 1 case
Alamo Travel Grp., LP v. United States, 108 Fed. Cl. 224 (Fed. Cl. 2012).
— 48 C.F.R. § 15.305(a)(2)(ii) — 2 cases
Int'l Resource Recovery, Inc. v. United States, 64 Fed. Cl. 150 (Fed. Cl. 2005).
United Concordia Companies, Inc. v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 34 (Fed. Cl. 2011).
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.