An insightful, timely, relevant, and accurate commentary on the LPTA issue and industry's concerns that it is "stifling innovation and shortchanging the warfighter."

Mr. Spitler's comments are, in fact, supported by an interesting National Defense University (NDU) "Spring 2012 Industry Report" titled "Private Support to Combat Operations Industry."

While the USG's buying power is significant and reasons for utilizing the LPTA concept for contract award currently sounds good, policy makers should remember that "reasons that sound good are not necessarily good sound reasons."

This is particularly true since "technically acceptable" is a vague and ambiguous term - and vague and ambiguous is exactly what the Department of Defense (DoD) should not be purchasing.

If achieving the Capstone Concept for Joint Operations goal of "globally integrated operations" is to become a reality and the United States Armed Forces mission is to "remain globally postured and integrate capabilities fluidly across domains, echelons, geographic boundaries, and organizations," is the objective, than policy makers should reconsider the true value of this effort and encourage industry growth and innovation to ensure "globally integrated operations" is achieved.

Like Mr. Spitler, I am concerned that if "capability" is goal, a LPTA-only approach will not get us there.

AMEN, Lowest Price, doesn't mean lowest cost if quality, customer service, experience, etc. are poor.  Taxpayers save a few bucks up front but pay for it on the back end, when these contracts need to recompeted sooner rather than later.

Agree with Mr. Spitler.  The following text is word for word from a HQ ACC solicitation which adds additional support to Mr. Spitler's discussion.
"The requirement will be evaluated using the Lowest Priced, Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection method. LPTA source selection method is a simplified best value source selection strategy that permits award to the lowest priced offeror who meets the minimum requirements as identified in section 4.0 of the PWS."
"Tradeoffs are not permitted and no evaluation credit is given to aspects of an offerors proposal that exceed acceptability standards."
Key words to note are minimum requirements and no credit for exceeding acceptability standards.  A core value of the USAF is Excellence in All We Do.  There is nothing in the LPTA approach that achieves excellence.
Austere budgets have driven the almost exclusive focus on lowest price.  LPTA has been supported by a poor economy where there have been adequate numbers of qualified people available and willing to work with pay and benefit cuts.  This is not sustainable if the economy turns around which it will inevitably do.
Also,most active duty personnel responsible for executing the mission under LPTA will move on before the impact is actually felt or noticed.  Their primary focus is to get whatever they can with whatever money they have.  They will most likely move on to their next assignment before the actual impact of their decisions are felt leaving their replacement with an even greater challenge.
Last point. The warfighter community (those responsible for executing the mission) have abdicated their responsibilities to the acquisition community.  I have had numerous operators tell me they're frustrated because the contracts shop won't let them acquire the services they need without using LPTA.  It is time for the O-6s to stand on a contract officer's desk and remind them who has responsibility for executing the mission and the associated budget.  The CO's job is to support the mission and comply with the FARs, (keep everyone out of jail), not mandate a LPTA approach with no other options. We all know budgets are tight, why not use a lowest price, technically superior approach?

Much of Mr. Spitler's comments are pure speculation.  How would he know how source selection boards are conducted given that he has never participated as a member of a source selection team? 

The comment that "the other 39 or so responses aren't even considered" is completely untrue.  Every proposal, with the exception of those that are disqualified for being noncompliant, is evaluated.   

There is a significant amount of policy to ensure that every offeror gets a fair evaluation.  This occurs at multiple levels, to include reviews by legal, acquisition policy, and ultimately the source selection authority.  The amount of oversight (especially for non-commodity procurements) cannot be overstated, and it's due to the fact that agencies have to protect themselves from protest.

The idea that the Government can simply ignore proposals because "the first LPTA in the stack wins" implies negligence that simply does not exist.  A quick internet search would turn up multiple SOPs for conducting source selection boards, none of which remotely suggests what Mr. Spitler is advocating.  

Concerning no definition for technically acceptable, that's also incorrect.  All offerors get the same criteria (typically section M of a solicitation) which details how technical, past performance, and pricing evaluations will be conducted.  It also contains definitions for outstanding, good, **acceptable**, marginal, and unacceptable.

This article is nothing more than one person's opinion.