MODIFICATION
Z -- Regional Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ), Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) for Maintenance Dredging within the Boundaries of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
- Notice Date
- 3/13/2015
- Notice Type
- Modification/Amendment
- NAICS
- 237990
— Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction
- Contracting Office
- USACE District, Jacksonville, P.O. Box 4970, Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019
- ZIP Code
- 32232-0019
- Solicitation Number
- W912EP15Z0003
- Archive Date
- 3/12/2016
- Point of Contact
- John Vohlken, 904-232-1884
- E-Mail Address
-
USACE District, Jacksonville
(john.d.vohlken@usace.army.mil)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION FOR PROPOSALS; NO CONTRACT SHALL BE AWARDED AS A RESULT OF THIS SPECIAL NOTICE. The purpose of this notification is to obtain industry feedback with regards to binding pricing for the SAD Multiple Award Task Order Contract for Operational and Maintenance Dredging. Rationale for this notice: The Competition in Contracting Act (CICA), and specifically 10 USC 2305(a)(3)(A)(ii), requires that quote mark cost or price to the Federal Government as an evaluation factor... must be considered in the evaluation of proposals. quote mark See also, FAR 15.304(b)(1). In general, GAO has interpreted this provision in the context of IDIQ contracts to require that cost or price receive meaningful consideration and that the evaluation scheme must provide some reasonable basis for evaluating or comparing the relative costs of offerors' proposals. Pricing that is only receiving nominal consideration, such as in a subsequent task order competition, would be inconsistent with CICA and cannot serve as a reasonable basis for award. The MIL Corporation, B-294836, Dec. 30, 2004, 2005 CPD 29. Meaningful consideration of cost or price in an IDIQ also requires binding prices. See generally, CW Carlson Wagonlit Government Travel Inc.-Reconsideration, B-295530.2, July 25, 2005, 2005 CPD 139. However, binding prices alone are not sufficient. Those prices must also accurately reflect an Agency's past or projected needs and take into account the amount that each binding price or rate is likely to be used. See, e.g., SJ Thomas Co., Inc., B-283192, Oct. 20, 1999, 99-2 CPD 73. As a threshold matter, even when price is the least important factor for award, the agency must meaningfully consider it. In The MIL Corporation case, when the Agency performed its source selection, it minimized the potential impact of price and effectively made price meaningless as a comparative evaluation factor. Specifically, the source selection for the basic contract awards was limited to reviewing prices proposed as reasonable and realistic, even while explicitly stating that price considerations were very important in the award of individual task orders. In failing to consider the differences among the offerors' proposed pricing-notwithstanding the Agency's evaluation of those technical differences - the Agency abandoned the solicitation's evaluation scheme and violated the legal requirement that price be given meaningful consideration as an evaluation factor for award. Thus, an assertion that competition among contractors at the task order level will be considered sufficient pricing is not acceptable to the GAO. quote mark The statutory requirement that cost to the government be considered in the evaluation and selection of proposals for award is not satisfied by the promise that cost or price will be considered later, during the award of individual task orders. quote mark CW Government Travel Inc.-Reconsideration, B-295530.2, July 25, 2005, 2005 CPD 139. quote mark [T]here is no exception to the requirement set forth in CICA that cost or price to the government be considered in selecting proposals for award because the selected awardees will be provided the opportunity to compete for task orders under the awarded contracts. quote mark The MIL Corporation, B- 294836, Dec. 30, 2004, 2005 CPD 29. See also Serco, Inc. v. United States, 81 Fed. Cl. 463, 493, (2008), (rejecting the Government's task order competition argument and finding that the agency quote mark gave price neither the weight it was entitled to under the solicitation nor that which it must be afforded under CICA and the FAR quote mark ). The Agency may not substitute competition at the task order level for compliance with the applicable laws and regulations. Included with this notice: Two spreadsheets are included with this synopsis. The first spreadsheet is the concept in which the Jacksonville District anticipates acquiring binding pricing for the Dredging MATOC. The unit prices will be binding within the base contract, and binding prices must be utilized in preparing task order proposals. The second spreadsheet is an example of how the spreadsheets would be utilized for a task order proposal. Within this spreadsheet, there is a tab labeled assumptions. This tab helps to explain how the equipment was selected for the example. How the Government intends to utilize binding pricing: The Government intends for offerors to submit binding prices with the base contract proposal for each line item listed within the worksheets included. If an offeror does not possess the equipment listed, or the labor item listed for a particular dredge, that line item will be left blank. Prices must be evaluated for all years of the contract, so offerors would be required to submit binding prices for each worksheet for the base year and each of the four option years. Along with the base contract proposal will be sample task orders that will be representative of the work to be performed under each MATOC pool. The prices submitted for the sample task orders as well as the unit prices for all items listed within the MATOC worksheets will be evaluated for reasonableness. After award of the base contracts within each MATOC Pool, the Government will compete task orders amongst the parties in each pool. Offerors proposals will include the worksheets for each task order to support the prices proposed for each line item within the bid schedule that contain binding pricing within the base contract. An offeror must utilize the worksheets to support their prices for items within the bid schedule. An offeror is allowed to propose lower unit prices than those listed within their base contract, but are forbidden from offering unit prices higher than those listed within the offerors base contract. Offerors proposals will be evaluated to ensure that they utilized the prices, or lower prices, than those listed within the base contract for each item that contains binding pricing in the base contract. Once offerors proposals have been verified to have used the pricing schedules from the base contract, an award will be made to the lowest priced technically acceptable offeror for each task order. At the time of task order award, the worksheet information will drop off from the award document. A task order award will look exactly like the bid schedule. This will ensure that offerors binding prices contained within their base contract are protected from release. Response Instructions: If you are interested in participating in this procurement please respond to this Special Notice. Your response should include: 1.Suggestions to improve the method of obtaining binding pricing at the base contract level for a MATOC for maintenance dredging. 2.Concerns about binding pricing and the impacts they would have in the marketplace and or against competition for the base contract. 3.Concerns about binding pricing and the impacts they would have in the marketplace and or against competition for each task order. 4.Any questions you have regarding binding pricing as it relates to the proposed acquisition. Responses to this Special Notice must be received not later than 30 March 2015 and shall be sent to the attention of Mr. John Vohlken via e-mail to john.d.vohlken@usace.army.mil. DO NOT SUBMIT PROPRIETARY AND/OR BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL DATA. A teleconference will be held on Monday, March 23, 2014 at 2:00 P.M. EST to discuss the material contained within this notice prior to the due date for written responses. The call in information is listed below: Toll Free - 877-873-8017 Access Code - 6479196 Password - 1234 After responses are received, the Contracting Officer may conduct a Follow-Up Conference to publically discuss this procurement. An amendment will be issued under this Special Notice with specific instructions if a Follow-Up Conference is to be held.
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/USA/COE/DACA17/W912EP15Z0003/listing.html)
- Record
- SN03667944-W 20150315/150313235458-3532289e4209e5b39994f9c3914437f9 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |