joel hoffman

I believe that there is a difference between adding 100% costs as direct costs or as additional “profit” for one or more possible contingencies that may or may not occur versus identifying possible risks and then considering the probability of individual or multiple risk occurrences. Our Chemical Weapons Demilitarization, Systems contractor identified various risks and ran Monte Carlo probability simulations for the risk analysis in developing its CPAF proposal for a task order for the design, construction and systemization of a plant to safely disassemble various types of chemical weapons munitions, drain and collect the agents, neutralize the agents, clean all the parts of the munitions and dunnage and dispose of the waste byproducts and metal components.

Im surprised that this topic is still open. @TippHill, can you advise what the resolution was? Thanks.

I wonder if the same “key dog personnel” are still available…🤪

I doubt that you would report subcontracting prior to the requirement for a subcontracting plan or reporting. However this is a question that you should contact GSA directly to ask, not here on an informal Forum. You must have dealt with someone at GSA when they modified your contract, correct ???

Perhaps a BPA with the several arbitrators , with the proviso that the arbitration procedures would apply to selection of the arbitrator.

That can be tricky. If you decide to conduct discussions and have one or more firms with deficiencies that may be curable, You need to consider pricing and non-price aspects of the proposals in establishing the initial competitive ranges. However, technically, materially deficient proposals aren’t eligible for award unless and until the firms can clear the deficiencies during or after discussions.

…for inclusion in conducting discussions. If no discussions, there is no competitive range or competitive range determination. If the firm is initially included but no longer in the competitive range after discussions at the time of a trade off analysis for selection, it’s not included in the trade-off analysis and its price isn’t considered. …of the selected vendor. If the firm is not included in the competitive range for discussions or is no longer competitive (unawardable) due to unacceptable ratings (and/or price) the government doesn’t have to and might be unable to consider its price (per the previous reasoning in this thread ).

Thanks, Jamaal. This ought to be obvious. But apparently isn’t to everyone.

Thanks, Witty. I forgot the citation.

Agree

There is no congressional identification of the vendor or authorization or direction to specifically use this vendor, correct? If so, then the 6.302-5 exemption isn’t applicable. More info is required. Based on the lack of any other information, I’d think that you need to find out if the program is such that no other vendor could take over. Determine status of program and perform market research if it isn’t limited to current provider or isn’t impractical to allow others to compete…

You are only discussing prices, not why B is a better value than A or C, considering both price and non-price factors.

I think that this has been discussed earlier in the WIFCON Forum that the prices for non conforming (thus unacceptable) offers should be excluded from comparisons in a price analysis. But I don’t have time to do the search and still dont know if the Search feature has been fixed. I’m pretty sure that Vern Edwards explained it at least once. But it makes sense that the price may be affected by the proposal weaknesses, non-conformance or other deficiencies **or undesirable aspects, thus exclude it from comparisons of prices for conformance with the solicitation requirements. It may depend upon the basis for the unacceptably of the offer, whether or not the unacceptable **or undesirable aspect or aspects of the proposal or quote are material to the basis of the price. Does that make sense to you ? P.S., in reading the Protest cited above, the basis for the marginal rating very likely would have affected the protestors price. **Edit: added “or undesirable”

I don’t understand your questions. One must not make broad assumptions without understanding and considering the specific context of the referenced protest. Here is a link to the protest: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-405942.4%2Cb-405942.8 Note that the agency stated that the non-price factors were significantly more important than the price, that it intended to award without discussions and that marginal ratings in the evaluation would not be considered for award. There would no need to evaluate price reasonableness in the instant example because award was to be made without discussions, price was least important factor and the marginal rating was clearly unacceptable for award. If the scenario were different and discussions were contemplated, the answers to your questions might be “yes”.