1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |DoD Proposes Limitations & Prohibitions on Use of LPTA Source Selection Process

DoD Proposes Limitations & Prohibitions on Use of LPTA Source Selection Process

Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.11.18

Implementing a Department of Defense (DoD) policy preference against the use of lowest priced technically-acceptable (LPTA) procurements that was codified in the National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAAs) for fiscal year 2017 and 2018, last week, the DoD issued a proposed rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to reflect the limitations and prohibitions in the NDAA provisions. 

Of note, the proposed rule would add DFARS 215.101-2-70, which sets forth the eight scenarios under which LPTA source selection procedures can be used, such as when the proposed technical approaches will require no, or minimal, subjective judgment by the source selection authority as to the desirability of one offeror’s proposal versus a competing proposal. The proposed rule makes clear that the limitations and prohibitions (e.g., the prohibition against using, to the maximum extent possible, LPTA procurement for the acquisition of IT and cybersecurity services and systems engineering and technical engineering services) apply to several types of acquisitions including, but not limited to, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 procedures for negotiation, acquisitions for commercial items under FAR Part 12, and simplified acquisition procedures using FAR Part 13.

Contractors should be aware of these new restrictions and have until February 4, 2019 to submit comments to be considered in the formation of the final rule.

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25

District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products

On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market....