Stan Soloway


The time is right for bridging procurement gaps

Are we at long last getting to the point where our government customers are starting to raise issues about the quality they are getting through lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) procurements?

Since they are the ones who matter most and should have the greatest influence, one certainly hopes so. As customers raise objections and point to actual mission impacts these bids are having, we can finally start making the rational changes that are needed to allow for cost AND mission effective solutions.

And indeed, there are positive signs.

First, a few months ago, the acquisition team at one of the intelligence agencies was directed by its top leadership to withdraw a request for proposals and re-work it after the operational staff, the end-use customers for the services being procured, complained about the unacceptable quality of personnel they had been getting through several earlier LPTA acquisitions and that they anticipated coming via this new solicitation.

Second, defense undersecretary Frank Kendall has tasked a team to once again take a hard look at the LPTA issue for Better Buying Power 3.0. In previous versions, Kendall effectively admonished the workforce to not use LPTA for anything other than pure commodities. But he is well aware that a great deal of concern still exists about the frequency and nature of their use. That he is again dedicating some significant manpower to it reflects the fact he takes it seriously and is also a hopeful sign.

And it’s coming none too soon as the effects of LPTA awards are becoming clearer. As one example, in early January I saw a compelling analysis of work being performed at a major Navy command that showed that, through its overuse of LPTA awards, the command was now buying specialized engineering services at rates the Navy had previously said were appropriate only for administrative support.

It’s another data-driven example that makes clear the absurdity of how far things have spiraled. And, from what we hear from our hundreds of members, it is far from unusual.

The more specific examples we collect like that the better able we will be to make the case that cheapest is rarely ever best, let alone the best value.

Some argue that industry is talking out of both sides of its mouth. After all, if contracts are being awarded at such low rates someone must be willing to bid at those levels. Of course they are. Companies need to survive and are doing everything they can to find a way to do so in a market that increasingly fails to value better than average performance, let alone excellence or innovation.

We see companies across the board not just reducing overhead to improve efficiencies, but slashing it to sometimes dangerous levels just to get their cost structures low enough so that they can compete in a low price world. Of course, such strategies threaten to leave them unable to invest in future capabilities or in people, which, in the long run, is a problem as much for the government customer as it is for companies. But they aren’t being given much choice.

Yet, there are still those that believe LPTA approaches work well. In fact, in our 2014 Acquisition Policy Survey, two-thirds of the respondents (all respondents were government acquisition and technology professionals) said they believe their agencies use LPTA correctly. Oddly enough, however, some 40 percent acknowledged that they don’t do a very good job at setting technical requirements at the right levels. We have also tested that question among industry and over 80 percent say they believe LPTA is used excessively.

That there is such a disagreement between many in government acquisition and virtually all of the private sector on this issue is no surprise. But what’s missing is the perspective of the end use customer. And those perspectives are beginning to emerge. In addition, there are a few things we can do better to bridge the existing gaps.

First, let’s simply prohibit LPTA competitions for anything other than pure commodities, be they goods or services. Once a competition is deemed “LPTA” it locks the government into a rigid, legal definition that provides virtually no flexibility.

At the same time, cost-technical trade-offs offer precisely the kind of flexibility needed for smart decision making but in no way prevent the government from deciding that cost is the predominant source selection factor, if that is appropriate. But at least the flexibility window remains open.

Second, let’s stop playing guessing or word games. In an RFP, the government could and should divulge the actual weights of each award criteria so that companies are absolutely clear on the government’s thinking and source selection objectives.

Third, every significant procurement should be followed by a 360-degree evaluation.  It would be relatively easy to survey all of the stakeholders, inside and outside of government, to get their perceptions of the quality of the process:

  • Was it open?
  • Was it collaborative?
  • Was innovation encouraged or enabled?
  • Did the customers get what they really needed?

These surveys, if used as performance improvement tools, could significantly help inform everyone about what is and isn’t working.

The best way to solve the LPTA debate is to engage the broad community, including the end user customers, and to create new and more relevant ways to evaluate the processes by which other than commodities are procured.

All of this is eminently doable. And given the signs that customers are beginning to get restive about the acquisition results they are being presented with, this is a terrific time to start bridging those gaps.

About the Author

Stan Soloway is a former deputy undersecretary of Defense and former president and chief executive officer of the Professional Services Council. He is now the CEO of Celero Strategies.

Reader Comments

Tue, Jan 27, 2015 Referee

I think, from this column and the comments, one can see LPTA for what it really is: yet another wealth redistribution scheme from the Valerie Jarrett White House. The big firms are very upset and will redeploy their lobbyists vigorously and with more funding. Meanwhile, the mom-and-pop firms, with lesser paid employees and far fewer exec and investor mouths to feed, are rejoicing. These smaller firms can provide the commoditized labor hours and FTEs. When it comes to end-products and outcomes for the government being supported, only a partisan could tell there is any difference in quality.

Tue, Jan 27, 2015

You apparently are not being impacted by LPTA procurements. They are having a terrible impact on lives in many areas, where people are being forced to take pay cut after pay cut just to keep their job. Sure, there are exceptions. However, its obvious by looking across America the impact this is having.

Sun, Jan 25, 2015

I don't understand what Mr. Soloway is aiming at. The large contractors, in league w government customers, have over the past 15 years or so collaborated in categorizing and defining labor cats. that sure sound like commodities. Indeed they are behaviorally, too: bought in bulk using commonly used specifications in markets that, if you clear away the clutter, seem not completely unlike markets for things like coal, oil and wheat. Sure, human labor is less standard that bulk carrier loads of commodities--but the definitions have become very standard. The GSA schedule contracts alone have wrought this standardization and consistencies. So, the companies, as well as the government, will have to work very hard to define their labor as other than commodities. And, as such, in many, if not all, procurements, a commodity approach will remain the way to go. Good for customer, good for taxpayer, but perhaps not so good for the investor-owners. But it is a living and a pretty good one. Just look at the Contractor Belt in No. Virginia.

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above

What is your e-mail address?

My e-mail address is:

Do you have a password?

Forgot your password? Click here

Washington Technology Daily

Sign up for our newsletter.

Terms and Privacy Policy consent

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.


contracts DB