ThePunk

Assuming that the Government will pay for transportation costs to and from the successful offerors' facility and the cost to operate the aircraft is known, i would use 52.247-47-Evaluation-F.o.b Origin (or something like it) to determine the Government's transportation cost that should be applied against the offer. Cost to fly aircraft per mile- $100 Offeror A- proposes $100,000 to complete the work - 1000 miles (roundtrip) from the location of the Government Aircraft Offeror B- proposes $70,000 to complete the work-2000 miles (roundtrip) from the location of the Government Aircraft Offeror A- evaluated total $200,000 Offeror B- evaluated total $270,000 Offeror A has the overall cheaper evaluate price, therefore receives the award. In the solicitation, I would provide the starting and ending location of the Aircraft (if allowed) and the cost to operate the aircraft.

A contract was awarded to a Contractor for production of non-commercial supplies. This was competitive procurement. The Government was to perform testing on the contract. The Contractor submitted the First Article Test samples to Government within the Required Delivery Schedule. Per the contract the Government has 90 days to test and provide notice of approval or disapproval of the First Article Test Samples. The Government Test Facility has been shutdown for non-compliance issues and there is essentially no established time frame for when the Government's Test facility will be up and running again. The Government is unable to meet the schedule called out in the contract therefore causing delay to the Contractor. A modification to the contract was issued changing the test facility from the Government to the Contractor's facility. The Contractor was paid for testing that occured under the contract. I am seeking opinions on whether this could be considered a change outside the scope of the contract. Keep in mind this was awarded based on competition, where proposals were submitted based on the Government performing testing on the contract. Additionally, the Government absorbed the test costs before the modification was issued.

Around 200k without interest. This was only on 2 contracts that I went back and checked. There very easily could be more.

So back to the original question... If DCAA/DCMA will not address this issue, because of the lower dollar value and lack of priority in their eyes. What other steps can or should a contracting specialist take to resolve this matter? Would this be something to take to a DoD Hotline?

You wrote: My question is: How can a contractor truthfully submit the certificate of cost and pricing data, when they knowingly(like you mentioned above) are going to negotiate lower material costs? 15.403-4 b (2) A Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data, in the format specified in 15.406-2, certifying that to the best of its knowledge and belief, the cost or pricing data were accurate, complete, and current as of the date of agreement on price or, if applicable, an earlier date agreed upon between the parties that is as close as practicable to the date of agreement on price. If a Contractor is going to negotiate lower prices after award is made, the prices that were certified too can not be found to be accurate and complete. Can they?

Contract A (1.5 mil) was awarded to a sole source vendor. Certified Cost and Pricing was obtained. TINA applies. A new requirement for the same items was recieved by the contracting shop. The sole source vendor submitted an offer (698K). Other than cost and pricing data was requested by the contracting shop and was received. This information contained actuals from the past three contracts (including Contract A). After reviewing the other than cost and pricing data, the contract specialist pulled the file for Contract A and looked at the Audit, Technical Audit, Cost and Pricing Data, and PNM that was completed on Contract A. The material actuals for the past contracts did not match up with what the Contractor Certified to under Contract A. This discrepancy was valued around 100K. It is believed that the contractor either- A--Negotiatied material prices with vendors down after award is made with the Gov't or B-- Waited until they recieve multiple awards from other contracts and purchase material in bulk to realize significant savings. It is in my opinion, that this situation could be identified as defective pricing because--- 1. Certified Cost and pricing data was obtained and Tina applies 2. The Government relied on the certified cost and pricing data 3. Reliance on this data caused and increase in the negotiated price 4. The contractor knew, or should have known, that more current, accurate and complete data existed. Through contacting DCAA and DCMA, it looks as though Post Awards Audits/Defective Pricing Cases are not even looked at unless they value 100m ( i may be wrong on that one). If this is the case, what other steps can or should a contracting specialist take to resolve this matter. It is important to note that this has occured multiple times when Certified Cost and Pricing was obtained and Tina applies. Thanks in advance for your help.