Analyzing the Effects of Source Selection Method, Acquisition Type, and Service Component on Acquisition Outcomes

Abstract

In defense acquisition and contracting, a popular anecdote is that source selection method can directly affect contract outcomes. Specifically, many believe that lowest-priced technical acceptable (LPTA) acquisitions offer a faster time-to-contract than tradeoff (TO) acquisitions. Many also believe that contract performance suffers under the LPTA approach, because it places price above all other factors, thus resulting in the cheapest solution. By comparison, the TO approach produces better contract performance because its flexible nature allows for price to be traded off for more important factors, such as technical capability, management capability, or past performance. Our research scientifically tests these anecdotes using actual contract file data and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) methods. Results indicate that it is the details of the source selection itself the value of the requirement, the number of evaluation factors, and the number offers received that affect time-to-contract, not the source selection method. We find no differences in contract performance based on source selection method. Additional analyses test for differences in contract outcomes related to acquisition type (i.e., product v. service requirements) and service component (i.e., the Air Force v. the Navy).