From looking at the link, QBS looks like a pretty inefficient and time consuming way to select a vendor. The selection of a company, then negotiating price might have to go through several companies before a reasonable price is found. Or ... you go with the first company and pay whatever they ask.

I work for a company that does engineering work under contract to utilities. The way the process works for us is that a utility asks for a bid for a job, and we respond with our proposed method for doing the job, our qualifications, and the price we will do it for. The utility then (typically) will select the bidder that will accomplish the desired result for the lowest price.

The best argument I could think of to support QBS would be: "Money is no object. We have much more in our budget than this project could possibly cost, and it is imperative that it be performed to the highest possible quality, and to state-of-the-art standards."

I think it comes down to "horses for courses". If I had Bill Gates's money and was looking for a contractor to build me a moon colony, I would go QBS. If I want to build a standard office building here on earth, I'd go value procurement.

Hope it goes well - I'd like to hear more if you are free to divulge.
VG

Ah...I mistyped. Qualifications. Not quality. The options are best value procurement or qualifications based selection procurement. It is for work aligned with the Brooks Act. The tired example I tend to enjoy is "Nobody willingly chooses a surgeon based upon a doctor's willingness to perform an operation most cheaply." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quali...

Definitely need context.

Quality seriously varies by target

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brook...

Hi photobug,
Some context would be helpful here. from your capitalization, I take it that QBS means something very specific, and/or applies to a specific process. If you have a link to a specific issue, that would probably help.
VG