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.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.03.26

Important EU Court Judgment Clarifies Rules on Interest Due in Cartel Damages Cases

In a judgment that will have direct and immediate consequences, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has clarified that for all competition damages actions brought after 26 December 2014, interest runs from the date on which the harm occurred. The ruling addressed two important questions: (1) whether national provisions implementing Article 3(2) of the EU Damages Directive — which requires interest to run from the date harm occurred —apply to cases in which the harm preceded the adoption of those provisions; and (2) how the date of harm should be determined in cartel cases involving the purchase of goods at inflated prices....

View All Insights