Given a scenario where the Government asks for proposals to be valid for 120 days, how would the Government evaluate a the price of a proposal with this term?

The proposal is valid for 365 days.

If the proposal is accepted within 120 days, the price is $1,000,000.

If the proposal is accepted from 121 days to 365 days, the price is $1,000,000 plus $1000 for each day beyond 120 days.

 

If they gave an assumed contract start date in the solicitation, perhaps they'd assume that date to be correct when evaluating your sliding scale?  Don't know if you'd get a consistent result across the whole Government.

I'd ask the contracting officer if it is not stated in the solicitation.

The acceptance date is not the date the proposals are evaluated, but rather the date the CO accepts the proposal forming a contract.  I would think that an award date would need to be established so the correct price can be determined and used as part of the evaluation.

If an agency solicited proposals with an acceptance period of 120 days, and Offeror A submitted a proposal with a period of 120 days at price X and a period of 121-365 days at price Y, then the agency should evaluate all proposals on the basis solicited--120 days.

If an award cannot be made within 120 days, then the agency may amend the solicitation to ask for an extension of the acceptance period, give all offerors, including Offeror A, a chance to modify their proposals to extend their acceptance period and adjust their prices, and then evaluate the proposals on the basis of the prices for the extended acceptance period.

3 hours ago, C Culham said:

Not on point but might be an assist......

http://www.gao.gov/assets/510/500749.pdf

C Culham,

The OPs question used the term "proposals."  Since there is a distinction with a difference between "bids" and "proposals" do you still find your hyperlinked decision pertinent to the discussion here?

In regards to the distinction between "bids" and "proposals" see the definition of "offer" under FAR 2.101:

Quote

“Offer” means a response to a solicitation that, if accepted, would bind the offeror to perform the resultant contract. Responses to invitations for bids (sealed bidding) are offers called “bids” or “sealed bids”; responses to requests for proposals (negotiation) are offers called “proposals”; however, responses to requests for quotations (simplified acquisition) are “quotations,” not offers. For unsolicited proposals, see Subpart 15.6.

 

I, like Matthew, don't understand what light the two GAO decisions to which we've been referred are supposed to shed on the question that was asked, which was:.

On 4/4/2017 at 7:59 AM, rsenn said:

Given a scenario where the Government asks for proposals to be valid for 120 days, how would the Government evaluate a the price of a proposal with this term?

The proposal is valid for 365 days.

If the proposal is accepted within 120 days, the price is $1,000,000.

If the proposal is accepted from 121 days to 365 days, the price is $1,000,000 plus $1000 for each day beyond 120 days.

Effectively, what we have in that scenario is submission of two proposals by the same offeror in a negotiated procurement. One is based on the terms of the solicitation; the other is based on more liberal terms. Both proposals are acceptable, but we should evaluate all proposals on the same basis unless the RFP provided for submission and evaluation of alternative proposals, in which case we should evaluate them both. However, since one proposal is clearly more favorable than the other on the basis of the terms of the solicitation, I think evaluating them both would be a waste of time. It would benefit neither the offeror nor the government.

The first of the two GAO decisions to which we have been referred has to do with sealed bidding and extension of a bid acceptance period and price revision after bid opening. I see no similarity between that set of facts and the scenario described above. The second decision has to do with revival of an expired proposal acceptance period. Again, I see no similarity between that set of facts and the scenario. But it's possible that 'm missing something.

In any case, since we have not heard more from rsenn, perhaps we shouldn't give him/her any more of our time, unless someone has a different opinion than mine about how the government should evaluate the offeror's prices.

 

Matthew and Vern –

Well I guess if you two agree then I must be off base that the first referenced GAO decision and subsequent court decision I posted does not in part confirm Vern’s Tuesday post that resenn’s proposal would be evaluated at the 120 pricing only and if the time for acceptance was extended then resenn’s could then offer the next level of pricing.  Noting same I have deleted my posts…….