Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Recommended Posts

Does having to go back to the contractor to fix calculation errors in offeror's proposal considered discussion?

Situation: Offeror Unit Price (U/P) is fixed, quantity provided. However, when multiplying the U/P x Qty = Amount does not equal. Thus, the offeror's proposal for those miscalculated CLINs resulted in the total price for the period to also be miscalculated as well. After the CS assessed the pricing, the assumption is that there were rounding issues (when figuring out the Unit Price (e.g., decimal places)), which resulted in a higher proposed number.

Having to go back to the contractor to clarify this, some of my peer state it is a minor informality; thus, it can be resolved through clarification.

Would I have to ask the offeror to provide me a new Pricing schedule with the corrected calculation?

My thoughts are to draft a Letter for Clarification addressing the miscalculated CLINs, and provide them the Governments calculation (corrected), and have them provide a response agreeing to the corrected version -- this won't require the offeror to submit a new price proposal.

I read this information: http://www.wifcon.com/pd15306e.htm, which I think is relevant to this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Let's say a contractor proposed a rate of $55/hr for the base and option years 1-3, but on year five (option period 4) they quoted $35/hr. The total amount of the proposal was calculated with the last option year pricing of $35/hr. It is assumed that the contractor meant to propose $55/hr for the last option period. The evaluated amount of the proposal (assuming the $55/hr across the board) is $20K higher than the proposed amount.

Could it be considered a clarification to assume that they meant $55/hr across the board even if this meant that their proposal would increase (which is what I am reading above)? Would that not constitute a proposal revision and require this to be discussions instead of clarifications? If this could be a clarification, can you really just document the clarification...that it should have been $55/hr and the re-calculated price and just award on initial proposals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume you're dealing with FAR Subpart 15.3 -- not FAR Part 13 or 14, and not FAR Subpart 8.4 or FAR 16.505. Have you read FAR 15.306( a )( 2 ) regarding clarifications for minor clerical errors? How about 15.306( b )( 3 )( i ) regarding communications for mistakes?

But why do you assume a mistake? If the CLIN price is very clear, and the total proposed amount is very clear, well, why do you assume? But since you do assume, FAR 15.306( b )( 3 )( i ) refers you to FAR 14.407-1, which suggests the contracting officer should call the offeror's attention to the suspected mistake. Unless the offeror alleges a mistake, maybe there isn't one. You can call the contractor's attention to the suspected mistake without inviting it for a correction or a revised proposal -- just an inquiry to discern if there is a mistake as a prudent first step.

But you only need to go through this trouble if this offeror is otherwise in line for award -- if not, it's academic and you don't need to address it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards

Could it be considered a clarification to assume that they meant $55/hr across the board even if this meant that their proposal would increase (which is what I am reading above)? Would that not constitute a proposal revision and require this to be discussions instead of clarifications? If this could be a clarification, can you really just document the clarification...that it should have been $55/hr and the re-calculated price and just award on initial proposals?

To "assume" that they proposed something other than what you see in the proposal would not be clarification or discussion. It would be, let's see... assumption. And you would be in trouble whether you were right or wrong about what the offeror intended. You cannot assume that an offeror has proposed something other than what you see in its proposal.

Clarification and discussion are exchanges of information -- oral or written -- between government and offeror, not something that the government does on its own.

Honestly, anonco, did you think that assuming something and acting upon your assumption would be clarification or discussion? Are you new to government contracting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say a contractor proposed a rate of $55/hr for the base and option years 1-3, but on year five (option period 4) they quoted $35/hr. The total amount of the proposal was calculated with the last option year pricing of $35/hr. It is assumed that the contractor meant to propose $55/hr for the last option period. The evaluated amount of the proposal (assuming the $55/hr across the board) is $20K higher than the proposed amount.

Could it be considered a clarification to assume that they meant $55/hr across the board even if this meant that their proposal would increase (which is what I am reading above)? Would that not constitute a proposal revision and require this to be discussions instead of clarifications? If this could be a clarification, can you really just document the clarification...that it should have been $55/hr and the re-calculated price and just award on initial proposals?

You might want to clarify what you are asking. Are you proposing to evaluate the proposal as if the offeror intended $55 per hour, or are you proposing to ask the offeror what it intended and treat the response as clarifications? Vern seems to think the former, while I thought the latter.

Regardless of what you were suggesting, allowing the offeror to correct the price of its proposal is not clarification. I agree with Ji, and because you believe the price might not be what was intended I would require you to process any change under the mistakes procedures.

One last item. If the price proposed is correct, I would require you to evaluate the potential for unbalanced bidding, both the potential of advance payments at an unnaturally high initial rate and the potential of an award that will not result in the lowest cost to the Government (particularly if options are not exercised).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...