Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Mr_Batesville

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

420 profile views
  1. UPDATE: In regards to the overhead, after numerous exchanges with the contractor and their accountant providing multiple FY's of information on allowable cost and revenues, I simply just negotiated. 14.95 down to 12 percent. In regards to profit, I used a "Structured Approach" from USACE ( They have a great template for construction and a-e profit analysis btw) to determine profit because our agency does not provide such approach. Negotiated from the "Historical Automatic Application" of 10% to 6%. All in all, we negotiated close to $1million in savings. Saying Thanks to all who provided help and guidance. Much appreciated.
  2. BTW.....I'm with USDA. Our AGAR is pretty light when it comes to further guidance such as structured methods. There is not one for determining profit..................I will respond back once i go through all the comments.
  3. Hello All, Thanks for all the detail provided. I am going to hash through it all and get back with an update on my understanding and how things go. Thanks again for the help.
  4. Hello all, Senario: The requirement is an 8(a) sole source for construction and a FFP type contract is contemplated. the estimated value is 3-5million. The ktr has an OH rate of 14.95%. We normally see overhead in the range of 6-10%. The ktr has a 10% fee on top of all the subcontractor's markup. All of the proposal backup for subcontracted work only has the lump some numbers on the quotes provided. Question: 1. Is the 14.95% allowable can this be negotiated? 2. Can a prime (8(a)) get profit on profit? Im looking for a dumb down answer on this one. I have seen that some say this is allowable however I need a FAR reference to validate. I have seen some post on this topic but none are plainly clear or easily spelled out with a clear yes/no and have a direct reference provided. Also, I have seen some site the excessive pass-through clause, this only applies to cost reimbursement type contracts for civilian agencies. 3. Can the Excessive pass-though rationale be used for an FFP construction contract in a civilian agency? Would this be a deviation since far only says it can be used for cost reimbursement?
  5. Mr_Batesville

    Best Value Source Selection - Scoring Price

    Vern: Thanks for the quick reply. I will review the FAR sections you have quoted and reply. Thanks
  6. Hello, I am currently contemplating an award using the Best Value Approach. Im getting confused on scoring price. I know that price needs to be evaluated and possible ranked. However, im unsure of how to score price when price is = to technical and come up with proper scoring. Score separately? Score combined. Below is some language that hypothetically I think would work . I would like to glean any insight on how I can approach best value when the basis of award is made contingent upon no-price factors = Price Factor? The proposed price, inclusive of all bid Options, will be evaluated but not scored. The evaluation will determine whether the proposed price is realistic, complete, and reasonable in relation to the Solicitation requirements. The proposed price must be entirely compatible with the Offeror’s technical proposal and in a format compliant with the Solicitation. technical/price tradeoff process will be used for this source selection. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforms to the Solicitation requirements and provides the best value , non-price factors and price considered. FACTOR 5 – Technical Solution is more important than FACTOR 6-Oral Presentation, and FACTOR 7 - Project Team; FACTOR 6 – Oral Presentation and FACTOR 7 –Project Team are equal to each other and are more important than FACTOR 2 – Project Management, FACTOR 3 – Special Experience & Technical Competency, and FACTOR 4 – Past Performance; FACTOR 2 – Project Management, FACTOR 3 – Special Experience & Technical Competency, and FACTOR 4 – Past Performance are equal to each other and are more important than FACTOR 8 - Small Business Utilization Plan; FACTOR 9 – Price, is approximately equal to Factors 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 combined. To achieve a Best value, the Technical and Price will be combined into an overall ranking of all offers in Phase 2 as described below. For this project, Technical and Price are approximately equal so the maximum possible points for Technical is equal to the maximum possible points for Price. The highest ranked Technical and the lowest reasonable Price will each receive the maximum possible points. TECHNICAL: The Combined score for Technical for each Offeror in Phase 2 will be ranked from highest to lowest. The scores will then be rescaled so that the highest score receives the maximum points allowed and the other scores will be appropriately rescaled to reflect a point value on the new scale that is equal to their Technical score. PRICE: Each Offeror’s price is rescaled to match the Technical scale. The lowest ranked reasonable price received by an Offeror in Phase 2 will receive the maximum points allowed and the other Offerors prices will be appropriately rescaled to reflect a point value on the new scale that is equal to their Price. The points from Technical and Price for each Offeror will be added together to provide an overall score for each Offeror in Phase 2. The scores will then be ranked from highest to lowest. The Government plans to award the contract to the highest ranked Offeror of the combined Technical and Price scores. If for some reason the award cannot be made, the next highest ranking will be selected. Example of hypothetical situational scoring: Tech=50 Price=50 Total:100 Firm A : Tech-90 Rescaled=50 Price:130k Rescaled:50 Firm B: Tech-85 Rescaled=47 Price:135K Rescaled:48.1 Firm C: Tech-80 Rescaled=44 Price:140k Rescaled:41.2 With this method Firm A gets a perfect score. Not sure this would stand up against possible protest.