Beginner Track • Topic 8

Statements of Objectives

A Statement of Objectives tells industry what you need to accomplish and asks them to propose how. It's the least prescriptive work statement, the least common in operational contracting, and the one that changes your entire solicitation strategy.

The Basics

What Is a Statement of Objectives?

You describe the problem. Industry proposes the solution. The winning contractor's proposed PWS becomes the contract's work statement.

1 The SOO in Plain English

A Statement of Objectives is the government saying: "Here's what we need to accomplish. We're not going to tell you how to do it, and we're not even going to define the performance standards. We want you to tell us how you'd solve this problem."

Per FAR 37.602, offerors use the SOO to develop a Performance Work Statement. The offeror proposes the PWS as part of their proposal, and the winning PWS gets incorporated into the contract. The SOO itself does not become part of the contract. It stays in the source selection file.

The FAR requires the SOO to include, at a minimum:

1. Purpose
2. Scope or mission
3. Period and place of performance
4. Background
5. Performance objectives (required results)
6. Any operating constraints

That's it. No step-by-step procedures (that's a SOW). No measurable performance standards (that's a PWS). Just objectives and constraints. The contractor fills in everything else.

2 How It Changes Your Solicitation

Using an SOO doesn't just change the work statement. It changes everything downstream.

Evaluation factors must account for the proposed PWS. If you're asking offerors to propose their own approach, you have to evaluate those proposed approaches. That means your evaluation criteria need a factor for "quality of the proposed PWS" or "technical approach." You can't ask for a technical solution and then ignore it in evaluation.
This almost always means a tradeoff source selection. When every offeror is proposing a different PWS, the technical solutions won't be apples-to-apples. Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) doesn't work well here because "technically acceptable" is hard to define when each proposal describes a different scope of work. You need evaluators who can assess the relative quality of different approaches and weigh them against price.
The practical implication: An SOO means more work for the source selection team, more complexity in the evaluation, and a longer timeline. That's not bad. It's just a tradeoff you need to plan for.

Here's the lifecycle:

Government Writes
SOO
→
Included In
Solicitation
→
Offerors Propose
PWS
→
Government Evaluates
Proposed PWSs
→
Winning PWS
Goes in Contract
The SOO
Stays in the File

3 SOO vs. PWS vs. SOW

Where does the SOO fit relative to the other two? Think of it as a spectrum of government control:

SOW
Government writes the method.
Contractor executes.
MOST CONTROL
PWS
Government writes the standards.
Contractor chooses the method.
MODERATE CONTROL
SOO
Government writes the objectives.
Contractor proposes everything.
LEAST CONTROL
Government directs everything Contractor proposes everything

As you move from SOW to SOO, risk shifts from the government to the contractor, but the government also gives up control over the approach. An SOO gives maximum flexibility to the contractor and maximum innovation potential, but it also means the government has to trust the evaluation process to select the right solution.

4 When Would You Actually Use One?

SOOs are rare in operational contracting for good reason. Most base-level requirements are well understood. You know what you need, and either you know the method (SOW) or you know the outcome (PWS). An SOO is for when you're not even sure about the best outcome to measure.

Complex IT modernization. "We need to modernize our network infrastructure across 6 buildings. We don't know what the right architecture looks like. Tell us what you'd propose." The government knows the problem but not the solution.
New capability development. "We need a training system for a new weapons platform. No existing system does this. Propose your approach." The government knows what it needs to accomplish but has no baseline to write standards against.
Broad organizational support. "We need to improve our supply chain efficiency. We've tried several approaches. Tell us what you'd do differently." The government has tried and wants fresh thinking from industry.
The common thread: The government doesn't know enough about the solution to write a PWS. If you can write measurable performance standards, you should. If you can't because the problem is too novel or too complex, an SOO might be the right tool.

5 Common Pitfalls

Using an SOO when a PWS would work. Don't use an SOO just because writing a PWS is harder. If you understand the requirement well enough to define outcomes and measurable standards, write a PWS. An SOO adds complexity to your solicitation, your evaluation, and your timeline. Only use it when you genuinely need industry to help define the approach.
Writing a PWS and calling it an SOO. If your "SOO" includes measurable performance standards, specific deliverables with deadlines, and detailed technical requirements, it's not an SOO. It's a PWS. The label matters because it tells offerors what kind of proposal to write.
Not adjusting your evaluation factors. If you issue an SOO but your evaluation criteria only look at price and past performance, you've defeated the purpose. The whole point is that offerors are proposing different technical approaches. You need evaluation factors that assess the quality of those proposals.
Forgetting the SOO doesn't go in the contract. Per FAR 37.602(c), the SOO does not become part of the contract. The contractor's proposed PWS does. If you accidentally incorporate the SOO into the contract alongside the winning PWS, you may create ambiguity about which document governs.
Interactive Tool

SOO Examples

Same HVAC scenario, written as an SOO. Click highlighted sections for coaching notes. Blue borders highlight good SOO technique. Red borders flag problems.

Statement of Objectives
HVAC Sustainment Services, Building 1240, Wright-Patterson AFB

1.0 Purpose

The Government seeks contractor solutions to provide comprehensive HVAC sustainment for Building 1240 at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. This building houses approximately 200 personnel across four floors and requires reliable climate control year-round. The Government is interested in innovative approaches that maximize system reliability while minimizing lifecycle costs.

2.0 Scope / Mission

The scope encompasses all activities necessary to ensure the twelve (12) commercial HVAC units in Building 1240 provide reliable heating, ventilation, and air conditioning. This includes, but is not limited to, preventive maintenance, corrective maintenance, emergency response, and system performance monitoring. The contractor's proposed approach should address the full lifecycle of HVAC sustainment for the building.

3.0 Period and Place of Performance

Base period of 12 months with two (2) 12-month option periods. All work shall be performed at Building 1240, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433.

4.0 Background

Building 1240 was constructed in 2003 and houses administrative and operational functions for the 88th Air Base Wing. The current HVAC system consists of twelve Carrier WeatherMaker 48TC rooftop units installed in 2015. Over the past two fiscal years, the Government has experienced increasing maintenance costs and unplanned downtime, with availability dropping below 85% during peak summer and winter months. The current maintenance approach has been prescriptive (Government-directed preventive maintenance on a quarterly schedule), and the Government is interested in whether alternative approaches could improve reliability and reduce total cost of ownership.

5.0 Performance Objectives

The Government's objectives for this requirement are:

a) Reliable climate control for building occupants throughout the contract period.
b) Timely restoration of failed HVAC units to minimize impact on mission operations.
c) Cost-effective sustainment approach that reduces total lifecycle costs relative to the current maintenance model.
d) Proactive identification of HVAC components approaching end of life, with recommendations for replacement or upgrade.

Offerors shall propose measurable performance standards for each objective as part of their proposed Performance Work Statement.

6.0 Operating Constraints

a) All refrigerant handling must comply with EPA Clean Air Act, Section 608.
b) Work inside the building during duty hours (0700-1700, Mon-Fri) must be coordinated with the Facility Manager to minimize disruption to occupants.
c) The contractor shall not modify, replace, or upgrade any HVAC equipment without prior written approval from the Contracting Officer.
d) All contractor personnel requiring unescorted access to the building must possess a valid Common Access Card (CAC) or visitor pass.

TRAINING EXAMPLE | NOT AN OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT
What happens next? Offerors read this SOO and each propose their own PWS with measurable standards, a maintenance approach, deliverables, and staffing. One offeror might propose a traditional quarterly PM schedule. Another might propose a predictive maintenance approach using IoT sensors. The evaluation team assesses which proposed PWS best meets the objectives. The winning PWS goes into the contract. This SOO stays in the file.
References

Look It Up

Key references for understanding and writing Statements of Objectives.

FAR 37.602: Performance Work Statement

The FAR section that defines the SOO's role. Specifies that offerors use the SOO to develop a PWS, the SOO doesn't become part of the contract, and the minimum contents of an SOO.

Open FAR 37.602

FAR 37.6: Performance-Based Acquisition

The broader subpart on performance-based contracting. Context for how SOOs fit into the government's preference for outcome-based acquisition.

Open FAR 37.6

FAR 15.304: Evaluation Factors

When using an SOO, your evaluation factors must assess the proposed PWSs. This section covers the requirements for evaluation factors in negotiated acquisitions.

Open FAR 15.304

OFPP Seven Steps to Performance-Based Acquisition

Includes guidance on when and how to use SOOs within performance-based acquisition. Covers the relationship between SOOs, PWSs, and evaluation criteria.

Open Seven Steps Guide (GSA)

Performance Work Statements Training

Our PWS training. Since an SOO results in a contractor-proposed PWS, understanding what a good PWS looks like is essential for evaluating what offerors submit.

Open PWS Training

Statements of Work Training

Our SOW training. Understand the full spectrum from SOW to PWS to SOO, and when each approach is appropriate.

Open SOW Training