FAR 15.101—Best value continuum.
Plain-English Summary
FAR 15.101 explains the "best value continuum" for negotiated acquisitions and sets out the basic principle that agencies may use different source selection approaches depending on the acquisition. It covers the use of any one or a combination of source selection methods, the varying relative importance of cost or price, and how the nature of the requirement affects the evaluation emphasis. In practice, this section tells contracting officers that source selection is not one-size-fits-all: when requirements are clear and performance risk is low, cost or price may drive the decision, but when requirements are less definite, more development work is needed, or performance risk is higher, technical factors and past performance may matter more. The purpose is to give agencies flexibility to tailor source selection to the acquisition’s complexity and risk while still making a rational best-value decision. For contractors, it signals that the evaluation scheme should match the solicitation’s stated priorities and that proposals should be built around the factors most likely to matter in the specific procurement.
Key Rules
Best value is flexible
An agency may obtain best value in negotiated acquisitions using any one source selection approach or a combination of approaches. The regulation does not require a single method for all procurements; instead, it allows the agency to choose the approach that best fits the acquisition.
Cost or price may dominate
When the requirement is clearly definable and the risk of unsuccessful performance is minimal, cost or price may be the primary driver in source selection. In these acquisitions, the agency can reasonably place greater emphasis on lower price or cost because the work is straightforward and performance uncertainty is low.
Technical factors may dominate
As the requirement becomes less definite, requires more development effort, or carries greater performance risk, technical considerations may become more important than cost or price. This means the agency may justify paying more for a proposal that better addresses complexity, innovation, or execution risk.
Past performance matters more with risk
The more uncertain or risky the acquisition, the more past performance may influence source selection. Agencies can use a contractor’s demonstrated record to assess the likelihood of successful performance when the requirement is not simple or fully mature.
Source selection must fit the acquisition
The relative importance of evaluation factors should reflect the nature of the requirement and the level of risk. The section requires a practical match between the acquisition’s characteristics and the source selection strategy.
Responsibilities
Contracting Officer
Select a source selection approach that fits the acquisition, considering how definable the requirement is, how much development work is needed, and the level of performance risk. Ensure the solicitation and evaluation plan reflect the intended balance among cost or price, technical factors, and past performance.
Source Selection Authority / Evaluation Team
Apply the stated evaluation scheme consistently and assess proposals in a way that matches the acquisition’s complexity and risk. Weigh cost or price and non-price factors according to the solicitation’s best-value approach.
Agency
Use the flexibility provided by the best value continuum to tailor source selection methods to the procurement. Ensure the chosen approach supports the agency’s needs and the expected performance outcomes.
Contractor
Prepare proposals that respond to the evaluation emphasis stated in the solicitation. In lower-risk, well-defined acquisitions, focus on competitive pricing; in more complex or risky acquisitions, emphasize technical merit, management approach, and past performance.
Practical Implications
This section is a reminder that price is not always the deciding factor, but it can be when the work is simple and low risk.
Contractors should read the solicitation carefully to see whether the agency is signaling a price-driven or technically driven competition.
A common pitfall is using a source selection approach that does not match the acquisition’s complexity, which can lead to weak evaluation decisions or protest risk.
Another pitfall is overemphasizing price in a procurement where technical performance or past performance is actually more important.
For contracting officers, the key day-to-day task is aligning the evaluation factors and their relative importance with the requirement’s clarity, development effort, and performance risk.
Official Regulatory Text
An agency can obtain best value in negotiated acquisitions by using any one or a combination of source selection approaches. In different types of acquisitions, the relative importance of cost or price may vary. For example, in acquisitions where the requirement is clearly definable and the risk of unsuccessful contract performance is minimal, cost or price may play a dominant role in source selection. The less definitive the requirement, the more development work required, or the greater the performance risk, the more technical or past performance considerations may play a dominant role in source selection.