Overview
FAR 15.305 establishes the mandatory procedures for assessing a contractor's proposal and their ability to perform the contract, requiring that evaluations be based strictly on the criteria published in the solicitation. It provides specific frameworks for analyzing price/cost, past performance, and technical merit while ensuring the entire process is documented to support the final award decision.
Key Rules
- Adherence to Solicitation: Agencies must evaluate proposals and assess relative qualities solely based on the factors and subfactors specified in the solicitation.
- Documentation Requirements: The contract file must document the relative strengths, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and risks supporting the evaluation.
- Cost Analysis vs. Price Analysis: For fixed-price contracts, price competition usually establishes reasonableness; however, cost-reimbursement contracts strictly require a "cost realism" analysis to determine the probable cost to the government.
- Past Performance "Neutral" Rating: Offerors without a record of relevant past performance may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably; they must receive a neutral rating.
- Evaluation of Entities: When evaluating past performance, agencies may consider the experience of predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors, and must consider individual members of a joint venture if the joint venture itself lacks a record.
- Right to Reject: The Source Selection Authority (SSA) retains the right to reject all proposals if doing so is determined to be in the government’s best interest.
Practical Implications
- Protest Prevention: Because the government is legally bound to the criteria in the RFP, any deviation from those stated factors during evaluation is a primary ground for a successful GAO bid protest.
- Proposal Alignment: Offerors must map their proposals directly to the solicitation's evaluation factors, as the "supporting narrative" required by FAR 15.305(a)(3) is built directly from the text provided in the proposal.
- Risk Mitigation: The requirement for cost realism on cost-type contracts prevents "buy-in" (underbidding), ensuring the government understands the actual financial risk and the contractor's grasp of the scope of work.