Smart government contractors don’t take just one bite at the apple when responding to a solicitation like a request for proposals (RFP) or invitation to negotiate (ITN). They hedge their bets by submitting “alternate” or “alternative” proposals that show off what they have to offer.
When the government drafts a solicitation, it includes numerous evaluation factors and assigns each evaluation factor a relative weight. For example, Orange County may issue an RFP that provides for scoring as follows: (1) technical/management approach – 50 points; (2) past performance/experience/key personnel – 35 points; (3) price – 15points. This evaluation scheme tells offerors that the County considers “technical/management approach” to be more than twice as important as price, therefore offerors should propose their best-possible solution or product – even if it has a significantly higher price tag than its other solutions or products.
But, real-life is rarely so clear cut.
Offerors’ prices may be revealed to evaluators before they finish scoring under the non-price factors (there is usually no legal prohibition on this, but an individual solicitation may forbid it). This can cause an evaluator to give a higher-priced offeror a worse score under the “technical/management” factor than he or she would have given if prices hadn’t been revealed. Although this is not allowed, it can be very difficult to prove this is what the evaluator did. Additionally, while an offeror may think it is proposing a superior solution or product, the evaluators may genuinely find it is only mediocre. In either case, the offeror’s decision to submit what it thought was a better product at a higher price will likely hurt its chances of winning.
Unless a solicitation expressly prohibits offerors from submitting multiple offers, sometimes called “alternates” or “alternatives,” a contractor that can propose more than one or good or service should do so. A company trying to land a private client would always “show off what he’s got.” Smart government contractors do the same. That way, if the government doesn’t think the “better” solution is that great, that contractor may still have a chance to win with its lower priced offer.
But, a contractor who does so it should try to follow a few basic guidelines. First, the contractor should distinguish its alternative offers so that it is clear what is being offered at each price. The less confusing an offer is, the more likely it is to be scored well. Second, if an offeror proposes different team members, key personnel, or subcontractors for its alternative “technical/management” approaches, it should provide past performance/experience/key personnel (or similar) responses that are tailored to each “technical/management” proposal. Finally, the proposal should make clear what the differences in the alternatives are. When proposing goods, this can be quite simple because a side-by-side comparison of the products’ specifications may make clear why one is more expensive. But, if the procurement is for services and there is a significant difference in price between an offerors’ “technical/management” approaches, the offeror should take care that its proposal shows why lower-priced offer will meet the agency’s needs, but the higher-priced offer will do so in a superior, yet more costly, manner (i.e., the more costly approach involves the use of more people or newer equipment). An alternative offer that doesn’t make clear why the higher-priced offer is more costly may leave the agency thinking the offeror should have proposed the superior solution at the lower price.
- Partner
Joseph M. Goldstein is the Managing Partner of the Fort Lauderdale office of Shutts & Bowen LLP, where he is a member of the Business Litigation Practice Group. Joseph also practices out of the Tallahassee office.
A ...
Search Blog
Follow Us
Recent Posts
- Florida’s New Statutory Home Warranty: What Home Builders Need to Know
- Orange County Proposes Temporary Suspension Ordinance on New Development Applications
- SECURE 2.0 and Protecting Your Designated Beneficiaries
- Florida Appellate Court Provides Further Guidance Regarding New Summary Judgment Rule
- SEC Adopts New Cybersecurity Rules
- From 😊 to 💼: Can Emojis Create a Legally Binding Contract?
- HB-3: An Overview of ESG Factors Relating to Public Funds Investment and Financial Industry Impacts
- The Live Local Act Part 2 - Affordable Housing Incentives
- Florida's Live Local Act
- Taking an Appeal to Florida’s New Sixth District Court of Appeal? Three Local Rules You Need to Know
Popular Categories
- Business of Real Estate
- Real Estate Law
- Construction
- Construction Litigation
- Development/Land Use
- Landlord-Tenant
- Trusts and Estates
- Appeals
- Contracts
- Litigation
- Litigation (Appellate)
- Business
- Foreclosures
- Florida Government Contracts
- Property Tax
- Estate planning
- Supreme Court
- Conveyances
- Appellate Blog
- Cyber fraud
- Technology
- Lease
- Wealth planning
- Government
- Florida Bid Protests
- Government Contracts
- Business
- Insurance
- Proposal Writing
- Public Bidding
- Public Contracts
- GAO
- Restrictive Covenants
- Grant Writing
- Bid Protest
- Title
- Cybersecurity
- Data Security
- Promissory Notes
- Construction
- Regulatory Compliance
- Liens and encumbrances
- Creditor's Rights
- Government Contracting
- Florida Public Contracts
- Small Business
- Bidding
- Compliance
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Federal Government Contracting
- Florida Administrative Law
- Public procurement
- Ad Valorem Assessments
- Attorneys' Fees
- Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure
- Florida Procurement
- Bankruptcy
- Eviction
- Mortgages
- Record on Appeal
- Rehearing
- Loan guaranties
- Attorneys' Fees
- Employment and Labor
- Litigation (Labor & Employment)
- Consumer Protection
- Regulation
- Maritime
- Briefing
- Request for Proposal
- Commercial Brokerage
- Bid Writing
- Florida Bidding Strategies
- Renewal
- Florida Public Procurement
- Attorneys' Fees
- Florida County Lands
- Florida Economic Incentive Packages
- Jury Instructions
- Stay
- Certiorari
- email hacking
- Assignment of Contract
- Assignment of Proceeds
- State Government Contracts
- Lis Pendens
- Appellate Jurisdiction - Deadlines
- Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
- Finality
- Preservation
- Technology
- Evidence
- Expert
- Federal Supply Schedule
- Florida Public Records Law
- Government Vendor
- Mootness
- Public Private Partnership
- Socio-Economic Programs
- Sunshine Law
- Veteran Owned Business
- Homestead
- Partnerships and LLCs
- Standing
Editors
- Of Counsel
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Of Counsel
- Senior Associate
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
Archives
- June 2024
- May 2024
- November 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- October 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016