Jump to content

Unidentified supplier in certified cost or pricing data


Sunstrider

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

EDITED: Is the identity of the selected subcontractor cost or pricing data for the prime?  I think so. That should be evident. Some firm has proposed a price, which has been allegedly used as a basis for the overall proposed price. Who the firm is and its price would be factual rather than judgemental data. The other proposers’ (the “competitors”) identities and prices are also factual data which are part of the proposal.

 

Vendor quotations are not anonymous. The vendors produce and provide the quotations. I’ve never seen an anonymous vendor quotation provided to a contractor. Vendor quotations are examples of cost or pricing data. 

I cant believe that I am wasting my time  justifying why a prime would be required to identify who the selected sub is or who the other firms were that the prime is using to substantiate that there was adequate competition.

This sub, it’s price, it’s products and how the sub was selected comprise the bulk of the scope and cost of the contract action.  They are factual data “that prudent buyers and sellers would reasonably expect to affect price negotiations significantly”, unless the buyer is a moron. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

Sunstrider, my question to you is this. Do you have enough information to either 1) agree that the proposed price and subcontract amount are “fair and reasonable” for preparation for negotiations and for negotiation purposes or 2) if not certain that they are, do you have enough information to conduct an intelligent proposal analysis, prepare a pre-negotiation objective, and negotiate with the contractor? 

I do have very recent historical pricing that shows the prime can get a much better deal from their supplier. Were they to purchase from one of their lower-priced suppliers, price would be otherwise fair and reasonable.

As things stand, the prime clings to the supplier who's quoted the highest price among the unidentified suppliers. I have no way of verifying the identity, cost breakdown, responsibility, or delivery schedule of any of the suppliers. Truly, I cannot even verify the suppliers' prices since I don't have their quotes. As mentioned, both the prime proposal and the supplies to be purchased (from the one supplier) exceed the TINA threshold. And yes, the supplies comprise greater than 10% of the prime's total price IAW FAR 15.404-3(c)(1)(ii).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Sunstrider said:

I do have very recent historical pricing that shows the prime can get a much better deal from their supplier. Were they to purchase from one of their lower-priced suppliers, price would be otherwise fair and reasonable.

As things stand, the prime clings to the supplier who's quoted the highest price among the unidentified suppliers. I have no way of verifying the identity, cost breakdown, responsibility, or delivery schedule of any of the suppliers. Truly, I cannot even verify the suppliers' prices since I don't have their quotes. As mentioned, both the prime proposal and the supplies to be purchased (from the one supplier) exceed the TINA threshold. And yes, the supplies comprise greater than 10% of the prime's total price IAW FAR 15.404-3(c)(1)(ii).

Thanks, Sunstrider.  You are definitely NOT a Moron!  I think that you have enough ammunition to demand that the contractor or perspective contractor pony up the necessary information for you to analyze the proposal. Good luck. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Sunstrider said:

 As mentioned, both the prime proposal and the supplies to be purchased (from the one supplier) exceed the TINA threshold. And yes, the supplies comprise greater than 10% of the prime's total price IAW FAR 15.404-3(c)(1)(ii).

To clarify -  I will venture an opinion, based upon the limited information available herein, that the subcontractors would qualify for an exception to providing “cost or pricing data” breakdowns to support their prices (15.404-1 (b). They allegedly submitted quotes or proposals in a competitive environment.

But that doesn’t automatically make the prices of one or any of the quotes “fair and reasonable” (not directed at Sunrider)

It aggavates me when government personnel (not directed at Sunrider) fall back on one sentence in 15.404-1 to assume that prices received through competition automatically define those prices as “fair and reasonable” - especially when comparison with prior pricing shows significant differences (as Sunrider can attest to here) - especially if the government evaluator doesn’t have a clue what the  items should or could cost and makes little or no effort to independently research the matter - especially if the prime contractor/Offeror is proposing under sole source circumstances (as I described hereinafter) with little or no incentive to examine or bargain for good market pricing  - using the excuse that there was competition. The higher the proposed direct costs are, the higher the fee or profit allowance - especially if the prime will bid shop after award and/or pressure the sub to lower its price after prime contract award.

— The vendor quotes themselves ARE cost or pricing data in the prime contractor’s proposal.  They are used to develop and support the price proposed by the contractor, which exceeds the cost or pricing threshold. I hope that readers understand that important distinction.

However, that doesn’t preclude the government from requesting that the prime contractor obtain and provide “data other than cost or pricing data” from a sub(s), if necessary to evaluate the price reasonableness of a sub (subs’) quote(s). I don’t know what information might be necessary here.

Just making the point that an exception to “(certified) cost or pricing data” doesn’t mean that no “data other than cost or pricing”  can be required to support a subcontract price.

And one can negotiate proposed subcontract pricing obtained through “competition”. 

The above is not meant as any criticism here of Sunrider. It’s a general observation, not directed at any specific poster.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we agree that this issue can be negotiated? Can we agree that Sunstrider can use the historical pricing he has as his negotiation objective? Or perhaps go even lower if prices are trending down in the supplier's industry? To me, it seems straightforward. Sunstrider simply declares that the government won't pay any more than X. Put the pressure on the prime to justify why X is too low. That justification may well include the information that Sunstrider needs. If it doesn't, then Sunstrider can reject the prime's justification as being inadequate (for all the reasons mentioned in this thread) and stick to X.

Post-award, if Sunstrider believes it's warranted, he can request a review of the prime contractor's estimating system. Post-award, Sunstrider can request a post-award (defective pricing) review by DCAA.

My point is, Sunstrider has a strategy available to overcome the barriers erected by the prime contractor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, here_2_help said:

Can we agree that this issue can be negotiated? Can we agree that Sunstrider can use the historical pricing he has as his negotiation objective? Or perhaps go even lower if prices are trending down in the supplier's industry? To me, it seems straightforward. Sunstrider simply declares that the government won't pay any more than X. Put the pressure on the prime to justify why X is too low. That justification may well include the information that Sunstrider needs. If it doesn't, then Sunstrider can reject the prime's justification as being inadequate (for all the reasons mentioned in this thread) and stick to X.

Post-award, if Sunstrider believes it's warranted, he can request a review of the prime contractor's estimating system. Post-award, Sunstrider can request a post-award (defective pricing) review by DCAA.

My point is, Sunstrider has a strategy available to overcome the barriers erected by the prime contractor.

The point is that the prime has to provide the vendor quotes with identification of who the firms are for each so that Sunstrider can evaluate the cost or pricing data and develop his/her prenegotiation objectives with “factual cost or pricing data”,  not have to speculate or guess who has proposed what in order to develop a PNO or have to discover after award via post audit. 

The liklihood of getting DCAA to perform a post audit on a smaller action are slim, based on my experience, unless they have on-site or otherwise assigned plant auditors. 

The proposal is deficient. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Retreadfed said:

See, DFARS 252.215-7009 item 14 and Table 15-2 Section II A " For all items proposed, identify the item and show the source, quantity, and price. "

Ok.

And in addition, where the Offeror is justifying an exception to the requirement for a proposed sub to provide cost or pricing data, based upon adequate  competition and it selected the highest price offer as the “best value”,  let me see all the quotes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Based on the information in the post, it is not an inadequate proposal.

The government may request to see the vendors quote, but don't have to if they believe it is fair and reasonable. If the materials/subcontracts in the prime proposal exceeded the TINA, they may rely on the past performance with this sole source prime?

A FFP sole source solicitation awarded on Best Value Continuum with no evaluation criterion 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, general_correspondence said:

The government may request to see the vendors quote, but don't have to if they believe it is fair and reasonable.

Based upon previous experience and the limited data in the proposal,  the OP said that he doesn’t have enough information to “believe it is fair and reasonable”.

7 hours ago, general_correspondence said:

 If the materials/subcontracts in the prime proposal exceeded the TINA, they may rely on the past performance with this sole source prime?

Is this an opinion or a question? Either way it doesn’t make any sense to me. What are you trying to say? Are you asking whether the OP can “just trust” the prime based upon the information provided in the proposal? Would you simply trust the proposer if it won’t even tell you who any of the firms are that quoted or who it selected? Especially if you recently bought the same item at a much lower price? Is it the same supplier? The OP doesn’t know if it is the same supplier or if the same supplier is one of the lower priced quotes. 

7 hours ago, general_correspondence said:

A FFP sole source solicitation awarded on Best Value Continuum with no evaluation criterion 

Are you referring to the prime contract action? We don’t know if it is a new contract or a modification to an existing contract. The OP only said it is a sole source action. The present contract action has nothing to do with best value at the prime level. 

The prime says that it selected the (unknown subcontractor) based upon  some type of best value competition between prospective subs. It selected the highest priced sub quote. 

Edited by joel hoffman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note that Joel's link goes to a memo, directed at DCMA contracting officers, regarding how to respond when DCAA asserts a contractor's proposal is inadequate. From my reading, it does not address actions when the CO determines the proposal is not adequate--though obviously a parallel process would be followed in terms of file documentation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...