Technical — Technical / Non-Cost Evaluation
Also known as: Technical merit, non-price evaluation
What It Is
The technical, or non-cost, evaluation is the government's assessment under FAR 15.305(a) of each proposal's merit against the stated non-price factors — typically the technical and management approach, understanding of the requirement, key personnel, and sometimes experience. How it is scored depends on the selection method: under a best-value tradeoff the evaluators assign adjectival or color ratings (e.g., Outstanding/Good/Acceptable/Marginal/Unacceptable) and identify strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and risk, all of which feed the tradeoff; under LPTA the same factors are judged simply acceptable or unacceptable. The evaluation must be based solely on the factors and subfactors stated in the solicitation, and the rating record documents the basis for each rating so the source-selection authority — and, on protest, a reviewer — can see why a proposal earned its rating.
When It Applies
- On any negotiated competition with non-price factors — the technical volume is where most of the evaluation work happens.
- Under tradeoff, where strengths and weaknesses on the technical factors drive whether you are worth a price premium.
- Under LPTA, where a single 'unacceptable' on a technical factor removes you from award consideration.
Key Features
| Feature | What It Means |
|---|---|
| Strengths, weaknesses, and risk | Evaluators document strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and performance risk against each non-cost factor. |
| Rated against the stated factors only | FAR 15.305 ties the evaluation to the factors and subfactors in the solicitation — evaluators cannot reward merits the solicitation did not announce. |
| Adjectival vs pass/fail | Tradeoff uses graded ratings (adjectival/color) that feed the tradeoff; LPTA uses a pass/fail acceptable-or-unacceptable judgment. |
| Documented basis | The evaluation record must document the basis for each rating, supporting the award decision and any later debriefing or protest review. |
What It Means for an SDVOSB
The technical evaluation is where a capable SDVOSB earns the strengths that justify a best-value award. Evaluators reward specific, substantiated approaches, not adjectives about your firm — show exactly how you will perform the work, who will do it, and why your approach lowers the government's risk. Write to the subfactors in order, make each strength easy to find and tie it to a benefit, and eliminate weaknesses by addressing every requirement. On a set-aside, demonstrate that your team can self-perform the work consistent with the limitations on subcontracting, because an approach that quietly relies on too much subcontracting is both a performance risk and a compliance problem.
How to Win Under It
- Write to each non-cost subfactor in the stated order, and make every strength explicit and easy for an evaluator to score.
- Substantiate the approach — staffing, methodology, schedule — rather than asserting your firm is 'highly qualified'.
- Eliminate weaknesses and deficiencies by addressing every requirement in the statement of work and Section L.
- Show realistic self-performance consistent with the limitations on subcontracting so your approach reads as low-risk and compliant.
Common Pitfalls
- Submitting an approach full of adjectives and boilerplate that gives the evaluator no concrete strength to credit.
- Leaving a requirement unaddressed and earning a weakness or deficiency that sinks the rating.
- Proposing an approach that depends on more subcontracting than the limitations on subcontracting allow, creating risk and a compliance flag.
Run the Numbers
Frequently Asked
What is the difference between a weakness and a deficiency in a technical evaluation?
In source-selection terms, a weakness is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance, and a significant weakness is a flaw that appreciably increases that risk. A deficiency is a material failure of the proposal to meet a government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level. Deficiencies generally must be raised if the agency opens discussions, and an uncorrected deficiency typically makes a proposal unawardable.
Can evaluators consider strengths the solicitation didn't ask about?
No. Under FAR 15.305 the evaluation must be based on the factors and significant subfactors stated in the solicitation. Evaluators cannot give credit for features the solicitation did not identify as evaluation criteria, and an award that relies on unstated criteria is a common protest ground. This is why writing precisely to the stated Section M factors — rather than to what you think makes your firm impressive — is the core discipline of a winning proposal.
Primary Sources
- FAR 15.305 — Proposal evaluation
- FAR 15.304 — Evaluation factors and significant subfactors
- FAR 15.001 — Definitions (deficiency, weakness)
Plain-English reference, not legal advice. How a source selection is conducted, and which evaluation method and procedures apply, is set by the specific solicitation, and the FAR is periodically amended — always read the actual solicitation (especially Sections L and M) and confirm its terms with the contracting officer before relying on this.
Change log (1)
- LaunchedPublished the federal source selection & evaluation methods reference covering how the government evaluates proposals and picks a winner — the best-value tradeoff (FAR 15.101-1), lowest-price technically-acceptable (LPTA, FAR 15.101-2), evaluation factors and subfactors (FAR 15.304), the technical and past-performance evaluations (FAR 15.305), price and cost analysis (FAR 15.404-1), the competitive range (FAR 15.306(c)), discussions and final proposal revisions (FAR 15.306(d) / 15.307), award without discussions (FAR 15.306(a)(3) / 52.215-1), oral presentations (FAR 15.102), the responsibility determination and Certificate of Competency (FAR 9.104 / Subpart 19.6), and debriefings (FAR 15.505 / 15.506) — each with a key-features table, a how-to-win checklist, common pitfalls, an SDVOSB-specific angle, FAQPage, Article, Dataset, and BreadcrumbList structured data, primary-source FAR citations, and cross-links into the glossary, solicitation types, clauses, contract types, how-to guides, FAQ, and the win-probability and price-to-win calculators.