Page images

99-3.605-1 Standard Form 44.

The use of Standard Form 44 is optional within the ERDA.Contracting officers shall be held accountable for books of Standard Form 44 issued to them. Heads of procuring activities shall issue detailed instructions, consistent with the provisions in Standard Form 44 and FPR 1-3.606-1, providing for accountability and safeguarding of the forms when used. Contracting officers, when using this form, will obtain any necessary obligation of funds and will limit procurement actions to items not otherwise restricted by law or regulation.

$9-3.605-3 ERDA order forms.

ERDA Standard Order Form 103 shall be used in lieu of Standard Form 147. Standard Form 36 (Continuation Sheet) may be used in lieu of Standard Form 148 as a continuation sheet, when required.

Subpart 9-3.8 Price Negotiation Policies and Techniques

$9-3.800 Scope.

This subpart implements and supplements the price negotiation policies and techniques set forth in FPR Subpart 1-3.8. Those policies and techniques applicable to architect-engineering services are set forth in FPR Subpart 1-4.10 and Subpart 9-4.10.

9-3.801 Basic policy.

(a) FPR 1-3.801-2 and 1-3.801-3 delineate the responsibilities of contracting officers and other personnel, respectively, in the procurement process.

(b) Access authorizations shall not be a limiting factor in obtaining full and free competition except where time will not permit securing additional clearances. If access to classified information is required either (1) to submit proposals in response to ERDA requests for such proposals, (2) to respond to requests by ERDA for expressions of interest, (3) to inspect facilities in connection with subparagraph (1) or (2) of this paragraph, a reasonable number of access authorizations will be furnished without charge.

$9-3.801-2 Responsibility of contracting officers.

The following is in addition to FPR 1-3.802-2:

(d) Pricing based on cost analysis involves, among other things, an appraisal of estimates of costs expected to be incurred in the future. The accounting projection of trends based on cost or pricing

data, together with any known changes therein, is only one method of conducting this appraisal, others* being:

(i) engineering appraisal of the need for the estimated labor and material costs and of tooling and facilities, and the reasonableness of scrap and spoilage factors, and

(ii) the preparation of independent estimates by competent technical personnel.

Occasionally, in circumstances other than formal SEB proceedings, differences of opinion will exist not only on the reasonableness of cost projections but also on the accounting techniques on which they are based. In addition, it is normally not possible to negotiate a pricing result which is in strict accord with all of the opinions of all of the specialists, or even with the Government's pricing objective. Reasonable compromises are normally necessary and this fact must be understood by all members of the team. For all of these reasons audit reports or pricing recommendations by others must be considered to be advisory only. The contracting officer is responsible for the exercise of the requisite judgments and is solely responsible for the final pricing decision. When the contracting officer does not adopt audit or other specialist recommendations that have particular significance on the contract price, appropriate com ments should be included in the record of the negotiation.

(e) Whenever it becomes apparent to the contracting officer that the negotiations will require the resolution of complex problems which involve items significant in amount, he shall request attendance by appropriate representatives at the negotiation meeting.

$9-3.802 Preparation for negotiation.

(a) Requests for proposals.

(1) Requests for proposals (RFPs) will describe generally the process by which selection will be made from among competing proposals. If proposers must meet certain qualifications in order to be considered, these qualification criteria shall be stated in the RFPs. In addition, the evaluation criteria against which all proposals will be rated must be identified in the RFP and the relative importance of each must be described in general terms. Normally, the RFP should require that a proposal be in at least two parts; a

* (NOTE: The "Armed Services Procurement Regulation Manual for Con

tract Pricing", ASPM No. 1 may be used as a guide in the review, analysis and negotiation of contract prices.)

"technical proposal" and a "business and management proposal". Each of the parts should be separate and complete in itself so that evaluation of one may be accomplished independently of evaluation of the other. The instructions to the offerers concerning the business and management proposal should require submission of cost information in sufficient detail to allow a complete cost analysis. The RFP should generally provide that the technical proposal not contain any refer

ence to cost.


(2) The contracting officer authorized representative shall have sole responsibility for disseminating any information with respect to or clarification of RFPs. Such information or clarification shall be in writing, usually in the form of an amendment to the RFP, and shall be furnished to all

to whom the original solicitation was sent.


(b) Synopses of procurements.

Synopses of procurements shall be in accordance with FPR 13.103(a).


Consideration of late proposals.

Pursuant to FPR 1-3.802-2, the procedures contained in FPR 1-3.802-1 for the consideration of late proposals and modifications may not be applicable to certain classes of negotiated procurements. Accordingly, when the senior procurement official, Headquarters, makes a determination that the procedures set forth in $1-3.802–1 are not applicable, that official may authorize, with the concurrence of counsel, the adoption of the procedures in $1-3.802–2, except for prime procurements of general purpose automated data processing equipment (ADPE). Use of the procedures set forth in FPR 1-3.802-2 for ADPE prime procurement must be expressly authorized by the Commissioner, Automated Data and Telecommunications Service, General Services Administration. Requests for such authorization should be sent to the senior procurement official, Headquarters, for necessary action.

$9-3.805 Selection of offerors for negotiation and award.

$9-3.805-1 General.

(a) The process by which one offer is selected from among all competing offers for negotiation and award of a contract generally starts with a request for proposals (RFP). The RFP describes the requirement to be satisfied by the procurement and sets forth the technical, business and management and cost evaluation criteria for the selection and should clearly indicate their relative importance.

The criteria should also be listed in descending order of importance. Where considered beneficial, a preproposal conference may be held after issuance of the RFP so that potential offerors may gain a clearer understanding of the requirements and objectives of the procurement. FPR 1-1.12 and $9-1.12 prescribe policies concerning the responsibility of prospective contractors.

(b) After proposals have been received and evaluated, in accordance with criteria in the RFP, written or oral discussions shall be conducted with all offerors in the competitive range, excepting as provided in S1-3.805-1. A proposal is in the competitive range unless there is no real possibility that it can be improved as a result of written and/or oral discussions, to the point where it becomes the most acceptable.

(c) The contracting officer shall point out to each of feror any ambiguities or uncertainties in its proposal. The contracting officer shall then give each offeror a reasonable opportunity to support, clarify, correct, improve, or revise its proposal up to a common cut-off date. An offeror shall not be informed of the relative strengths and weaknesses of its proposal in relation to those of other offerors nor shall an offeror be given information as to how its proposal might be improved or which could reveal a competitor's idea.

(d) Revised proposals are evaluated, selection is made and negotiations may be conducted with the selected offeror but only to definitize a final agreement on price, terms, and conditions, etc. (No factor which could have had any effect on the selection process may be changed after the common cut-off date for discussions.)

(e) See $9-3.103 for dissemination of procurement information.

$9-3.805-50 Selection procedures.

(a) Except as set forth below, the contracting officer is responsible for performing or having performed all actions necessary for effective contracting. In most cases, the contracting officer will accomplish this with minimum outside assistance, but in some cases the contracting officer may use specialists as described in FPR 1-3.801-2 to perform key actions. For those procurements where certain selection responsibilities are specifically delegated to others (i.e., in a formal selection process involving an evaluation board and a designated selection official, e.g., SEBS, PONS, and PRDAs), the contracting officer becomes a participant rather than the selection official. In all cases, the objective is to complete the process with the minimum expenditure of time consistent with the factors surrounding the procurement.

(b) Source evaluation board (SEB) procedures will be used for

all negotiated competitive prime procurements expected to exceed $5 million, excepting procurements for architect-engineer services, and procurements specifically waived by the head of the agency. Detailed procedures regarding the designation and operation of the SEBs are set forth in the SEB handbook. RFPs prepared by formal SEBs are reviewed by a solicitation review panel. conducted by Headquarters.

(c) Negotiated competitive procurements below $5 million are not subject to the SEB Handbook (Procurement Handbook #1), except for those situations as determined by the head of the agency or designee. For those under $5 million, less formal procedures are used. For those procurements under $5 million but more than $1 million, source evaluation panels may be established. These panels may follow the policies and procedures set forth in the SEB Handbook as a guide. For procurements under $1 million less formal source evaluation and selection procedures will be used.

(d) The contracting officer may form teams to evaluate the technical, business and management, and cost aspects of proposals. When teams are used, each will function independent of the other and report its findings to the contracting officer. The contracting officer will discuss those findings with the teams (or representatives thereof) separately or together, as may be more helpful. The contracting officer will negotiate and execute the contractual instrument, using, in many cases, some of the same specialists who participated in earlier evaluations and discussions. ERDA-PR Part 9-51 sets forth administrative requirements for the review and approval of certain contract actions.

(e) In selections other than where price is the determining factor, the evaluation procedures set forth in (1), (2) and (3) below should be considered.

(1) Technical evaluation. Generally, the contracting officer must rely on scientific and engineering personnel for assistance in reviewing proposals from a technical point of view. It is imperative, therefore, that technical evaluations and findings be fully documented and reviewed by responsible personnel. The report should reflect the scoring and ranking of the proposals and shall identify each proposal as acceptable or unacceptable. The report shall also include a narrative evaluation specifying the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal, and any reservations or qualifications that might bear upon the selection of sources for negotiation and award. Concrete technical reasons supporting a determination of unacceptability with regard to any proposal shall be included.

After evaluation and preparation of written and signed evaluation findings by the technical evaluators, such evaluations and proposals shall be returned to the contracting officer or authorized representative, and maintained as a permanent record in the contract file.

(2) Business and Management evaluation Management capabilities of the offeror to perform the required work in a timely manner

« PreviousContinue »