MATOC Sample Task Price Eval

[I_want_to_learn]

I understand that every source selection must include cost/price as an evaluation factor. In this instance (a MATOC) I am in the process of trying to understand how sample tasks, or tasks that are not awardable, can provide a rational basis for the pricing evaluation when the sample tasks are of a FFP and CPFF basis and they are non-executable.

In the post award task order environment when the tasks are binding and executable, the multiple awardees will bid their most competitive price under an FFP arrangement. We use price analysis to determine whether the price proposed is reasonable. Under CPFF, the offeror will propose IAW FAR 15.408, Table 15-2 and will propose their most competitive cost proposal and cost realism will be used to assess the realism of the costs proposed. Easy enough.

However, when these MATOC sample tasks are fake tasks (even though they are representative samples), how do you evaluate price if you do not lock in direct labor rates, indirect rates, G&A, MH, etc? Additionally, if you only lock in one of these rates (say each individually proposed G&A rate or each individual fee rate as ceiling rates) for the future CPFF awards for each offeror, will that suffice as locking rates on contract and pass the GAO test if protested.

Any thoughts or ideas?

[woops85]

As part of the MATOC cost evaluation, there should be an direct and indirect rate review. A FPRA from DCAA easily provides the CO with the info needed for the indirect rate review. Direct rate analysis could come from DCAA (if they have audited the vendor) or by vendors providing sufficient back-up documentation, such as pricing used on other contracts, salary surveys or payroll records, to allow the cost team to evaluate the proposed direct rates for the task.

Of course, it all boils down to what you tell the vendors you are going to evaluate about the cost proposal - is it the reasonableness of the rates proposed for each labor category? Is it total cost of the sample task(s)? I've seen it both ways but not been on the cost team to say which way works best.

[joel hoffman]

I understand that every source selection must include cost/price as an evaluation factor. In this instance (a MATOC) I am in the process of trying to understand how sample tasks, or tasks that are not awardable, can provide a rational basis for the pricing evaluation when the sample tasks are of a FFP and CPFF basis and they are non-executable.

In the post award task order environment when the tasks are binding and executable, the multiple awardees will bid their most competitive price under an FFP arrangement. We use price analysis to determine whether the price proposed is reasonable. Under CPFF, the offeror will propose IAW FAR 15.408, Table 15-2 and will propose their most competitive cost proposal and cost realism will be used to assess the realism of the costs proposed. Easy enough.

However, when these MATOC sample tasks are fake tasks (even though they are representative samples), how do you evaluate price if you do not lock in direct labor rates, indirect rates, G&A, MH, etc? Additionally, if you only lock in one of these rates (say each individually proposed G&A rate or each individual fee rate as ceiling rates) for the future CPFF awards for each offeror, will that suffice as locking rates on contract and pass the GAO test if protested.

Any thoughts or ideas?

"Learn", the use of sample task orders was discussed in the thread "Use of Illustrative Task Orders for Price/Cost Analysis", which you have already posted to. Are you asking something different than the original poster in that thread?

Are you asking for specific Decisions concerning the adequacy or inadequacy of using binding fee/ profit rates and G&A or other markups as adequate price competition?

[I_want_to_learn]

"Learn", the use of sample task orders was discussed in the thread "Use of Illustrative Task Orders for Price/Cost Analysis", which you have already posted to. Are you asking something different than the original poster in that thread?

Are you asking for specific Decisions concerning the adequacy or inadequacy of using binding fee/ profit rates and G&A or other markups as adequate price competition?

Joel - if there are specific decisions concerning the adequacy/inadequacy of using binding fee/profit rates and G&A or other markups as adequate price competition then I would love to read. I read through the thread you mentioned and it seemed to jump off the original topic, so I wanted to get back to the original topic. Was that wrong?