The phrase “comparative evaluation” in FAR 13.106-2(b)(3) often sparks confusion, especially regarding its practical application in simplified acquisitions. This article delves into the meaning and execution of comparative evaluations, offering a clear methodology and addressing common concerns about efficiency and risk.
Deciphering “Comparative Evaluation” in FAR 13
FAR 13.106-2(b)(3) states that “Contracting offices may conduct comparative evaluations of offers.” This seemingly simple sentence lacks clear definition within the FAR itself. It was introduced without explanation, leaving many to interpret its meaning and application. One interpretation suggests it allows for direct offer comparisons without traditional evaluation standards and ratings.
A Practical Approach to Comparative Evaluation
Let’s explore a potential application of comparative evaluation using a hypothetical scenario. Imagine a requirement necessitates evaluating offers based on experience, past performance, and price, with all factors considered equally important.
1. Defining Evaluation Factors: Clearly define each factor in the solicitation. For instance, “experience” could be defined as the number of years successfully completing similar projects. This provides offerors with clear expectations.
2. Conformity Check: Upon receiving quotes, ensure they meet all material requirements of the RFQ. Non-conforming quotes are deemed unacceptable and excluded from further evaluation.
3. Pairwise Comparisons: Employ a pairwise comparison method, comparing offers head-to-head for each factor. For example, compare Offeror A’s experience to Offeror B’s, documenting a reasoned, subjective determination of which is superior. Assume transitivity; if A is better than B, and B is better than C, then A is also better than C.
4. Point Allocation: Assign points based on the pairwise comparisons. The best offeror for each factor receives the highest point value. In a four-offeror scenario, the highest ranked receives four points, the second receives three, and so on.
5. Totaling Points: Sum the points for each offeror across all factors. The offeror with the highest total score is considered the best value.
6. Documentation: Thoroughly document the rationale behind each subjective assessment. This is crucial for transparency and defensibility. This documentation should clearly articulate the differences between offers and why one was deemed superior.
Weighting Evaluation Factors
To prioritize certain factors, assign decimal weights that sum to 1.0. For example, experience could be weighted 0.5, past performance 0.3, and price 0.2. Multiply each factor’s point total by its corresponding weight before summing for a final score.
Efficiency and Risk Considerations
This comparative evaluation method can be efficient, potentially requiring less time than complex tradeoff approaches. However, the subjective nature necessitates strong documentation skills. The risk is minimal if the process is executed with sound judgment and well-articulated rationale. The key to mitigating risk lies in the ability to clearly and defensibly document the subjective assessments made during the pairwise comparisons.
Conclusion
Comparative evaluation in FAR 13 offers a flexible approach to simplified acquisitions. While subjective, it can be efficient and low-risk when executed with careful planning and thorough documentation. The success of this method hinges on the contracting officer’s ability to articulate clear distinctions between competing offers and justify the final award decision.
