I’ve written before about the Best Value acquisition process. This writing is focused on one of the two types of Best Value awards, the Tradeoff.
Recall the whole idea of Best Value is that the Government has determined there are things more important than cost. Typically, it’s the low bidder who receives the contract. Best Value is the process for awarding to someone who is not the lowest bidder.
The Government is willing to pay more for a higher quality product, lower project risk, or better service. We live in a best value world every day. We often choose to pay more for higher end goods rather than buy the cheaper alternative. Here, the Government is exercising this same approach.
Section M of the RFP discloses basis for the Government’s contract decision. In addition to cost, there will be various factors, and probably sub-factors which the evaluation team will use in determining which offeror represents the best value to the Government. Read this section carefully. Some of these factors will be more important than the others (the Government is required to state the relative importance of the various factors) which is critical information in building your proposal.
Since Best Value awards are not based strictly on lowest cost, there is room for subjective judgement during the contract award process, and hence room to argue the how and why of the award decision. In order to assemble an award rationale that will stand up to public scrutiny (including the scrutiny of the losing bidders!) the Government needs to create a defendable, bullet-proof case as to why the award was given to a certain offeror over its competitors. They do this by citing details directly from the proposals.
The takeaway here: the Best Value Tradeoff process requires an ultra-thorough review of the proposals. I recommend that writers submitting for Best Value acquisitions be prepared for their proposals to be dissected and closely scrutinized by the Government’s evaluation team. Every paragraph. Every sentence. I have been in evaluations where the team discussed specific word choices used by the offeror. Always keep in mind the Government needs to build a solid position that will hold up in case of a protest from a losing offeror. Those specific, minute details in your proposal will help them do just that. Imagine that you’re supplying the Government with the information they need to defend selecting you as the contract winner.
Pay close attention to Section M’s award criteria, ensure you’re addressing each one thoroughly, and give the evaluation team the clear, convincing, relevant information it needs to build its case.