Thoughts –

You have not stated what the evaluation process will be for your scenario.   But consider this –

You run the risk of your offer/bid being found to have material defect with regard to pricing by adding a condition that is not stipulated in the contract line item schedule.   A conclusion of material defect in a bid for a sealed bid would result in a non-responsive bid.   A material defect for a response to an RFP under FAR part 15 and possibly an RFQ that uses FAR part 15 processes for evaluation would result in your offer being deemed unacceptable.   If an RFQ that uses price and/or other factors for evaluation and that is truly seeking a quote there is no material defect analogy and the agency could consider the quote and might review it in both the scenarios you have posed.

My comments are based on a read of your scenario with no specific references researched to support my view.   Hopefully my thoughts have given thoughts to consider as depending on the actual scenario, such as the evaluation process stated in the solicitation, how much money you are really talking about , has the agency stated that they may award without discussions, etc.,  reviewing applicable GAO protest decisions would be helpful way of trying to determine the risk of a determination of non-responsive or unacceptable based on conditional pricing.

lotus said:

The Govt is asking for prices for 3 optional CLIN’s, 7, 8, & 9, each for the same thing.

We figure the first of them can be provided for $130, and the other 2 for $100 each.  But the Govt can exercise any of the CLIN’s them or none of them.

If we were to offer a prices like this, would the Govt say it is non-compliant?  Would they evaluate the price as $390 or $330?

CLIN 7,  $130

CLIN 8,  $130, discounted to $100 if CLIN 7 is also exercised.

CLIN 9, $130, discounted to $100 if CLIN 7 is also exercised.

See below, if this provision is applicable: 52.215-1 (c)(4)

Quote

“(4) Unless otherwise specified in the solicitation, the offeror may propose to provide any item or combination of items.”

i suggest asking the government to clarify if it is acceptable for you propose a discount. Might help to cite the above paragraph.

C Culham said:

You run the risk of your offer/bid being found to have material defect with regard to pricing by adding a condition that is not stipulated in the contract line item schedule.   A conclusion of material defect in a bid for a sealed bid would result in a non-responsive bid.

Sounds like if you were the Govt buyer, you'd toss the offer as non-compliant (non-responsive).

lotus said:

Sounds like if you were the Govt buyer, you'd toss the offer as non-compliant (non-responsive).

Lotus - First just to be specific where did I say "non-compliant".   I really suggest that word not be used.   Material defect that is either non-responsive or unacceptable.

With the above said I am not as poster here or would not as the CO make a determination without adequate information regarding the type of solicitation, the terms and conditions of the solicitation as they relate to offer submission and exactly how the offer is presented.  But there dang sure is a possibility that as a bid presented in the manner you have stated would be determined to be non-responsive.

Lotus, I suggest that you ask your question of the government point of contact.  I indicated that FAR provision 52.215-1 (if applicable to your solicitation) states in part:

joel hoffman said:

“(4) Unless otherwise specified in the solicitation, the offeror may propose to provide any item or combination of items.”

lotus, do you have a problem asking for a clarification? You can first ask if you can ask a confidential question - they can say yes or no. I can understand that you wouldn’t want your idea publicized. 

You have mentioned “offer” twice, so it isn’t an IFB, which usually involves much stricter formats. 

I don’t see that your proposal has any material defect. If the government doesn’t want to consider a discount for a combination of items, I think that they can ignore  the discount. Your prices are clear either way. 

Isn’t  your main question:, “Can I propose to provide any item or a discount for any combination of items, per 52.215-1 (c)(4)?” 

I remember years ago, in dealing with end of year rush for projects in Panama that were subject to funds availability, seeing such voluntary discount offers included in proposals. 

The firms in Panama and our other Latin American locations , including both American Expats and local firms, knew that US Army SouthCom and the Air Force wouldn’t be able to determine and release O&M funding until the last day or two of the fiscal year.

The Mobile District of USACE Contracts was awarding contracts up to midnight. In later years, the Corps of Engineers came up with a procedure whereby our Division in Honolulu would make the last minute awards up to Midnight, Hawaii time. 

The DoD, as far as I am aware, no longer has much or any installations in Panama and I’m no longer involved with my old District. I’m  not up to date with current activities in Central and South America for DoD.

Why not just submit two complete and separate offers, one with the discounts and one without?

Vern Edwards said:

Why not just submit two complete and separate offers, one with the discounts and one without?

I thought about that, too. I would Second that idea, if allowable and affordable.

It shouldn't entail more than filling in a different set of CLIN pages for the options, signing a new cover sheet, etc. Everything else will be the same. I doubt that the agency prohibited submitting more than one proposal. The thought probably never crossed their minds.

Anyway, that's what I'd do, assuming there is no express prohibition. Just make sure to send two complete and separate proposals.

Put an end to all the fretting.

Vern Edwards said:

It shouldn't entail more than filling in a different set of CLIN pages for the options

So there is the issue of the CLIN being FAR subpart 4.10 compliant as well as the fact that we are not talking about different quantities of a CLIN we are talking about how an offeror wants to price the CLIN.  The government, at least at this point, wants one price, the offeror wants to offer two prices for the same thing and quantity, contingent upon something happening.

I guess it would look something like this -

CLIN 7,  X Quantity - $130 each

CLIN 8,  X Quantity  - $130 each (To be exercised only if CLIN 7 is not)

CLIN 8A, X Quantity - $100 each (To be exercised only if CLIN 7 is Exercised)

CLIN 9,  X Quantity - $130 (To be exercised only if CLIN 7 is not)

CLIN 9A, X Quantity - $100 each (To be exercised only if CLIN 7 is Exercised)

By the way, again guessing on how the solicitation might be formatted, if a commercial item and FAR 52.212-1 is included in exact wording as found in the FAR multiple offers are encouraged and therefore allowed.

On 9/30/2018 at 8:18 AM, C Culham said:

So there is the issue of the CLIN being FAR subpart 4.10 compliant as well as the fact that we are not talking about different quantities of a CLIN we are talking about how an offeror wants to price the CLIN.  The government, at least at this point, wants one price, the offeror wants to offer two prices for the same thing and quantity, contingent upon something happening.

I guess it would look something like this -

CLIN 7,  X Quantity - $130 each

CLIN 8,  X Quantity  - $130 each (To be exercised only if CLIN 7 is not)

CLIN 8A, X Quantity - $100 each (To be exercised only if CLIN 7 is Exercised)

CLIN 9,  X Quantity - $130 (To be exercised only if CLIN 7 is not)

CLIN 9A, X Quantity - $100 each (To be exercised only if CLIN 7 is Exercised)

By the way, again guessing on how the solicitation might be formatted, if a commercial item and FAR 52.212-1 is included in exact wording as found in the FAR multiple offers are encouraged and therefore allowed.

Do you think the CLIN's 8A and 9A, being not in the solicitation, would survive evaluation or be tossed as non-responsive (or non-compliant, or causing a material defect, pick your poison)?

Deleted

lotus said:

Do you think the CLIN's 8A and 9A, being not in the solicitation, would survive evaluation or be tossed as non-responsive (or non-compliant, or causing a material defect, pick your poison)?

Must not be a commercial item acquisition, if you are asking this.

If you don’t want to talk to the agency concerning 52.215-1 and your proposed  general approach, do you have a problem with submitting two complete and separate proposals?

lotus said:

Do you think the CLIN's 8A and 9A, being not in the solicitation, would survive evaluation or be tossed as non-responsive (or non-compliant, or causing a material defect, pick your poison)?

FAR part 12 solicitation that utilizes 52.212-1 not tailored - Maybe depending on the FAR part utilized for evaluation.  

FAR part 13 solicitation asking for quotes and specifically being evaluated under FAR part 13 ideals -  less risk of being tossed.

FAR part 14 solicitation - most likely would not survive.

FAR part 15 solicitation - LPTA most likely would not survive.  Trade-off less risk of being tossed but still a maybe of not surviving.

In all cases as a multiple offer, if allowed by the specific solicitation, it would most likely survive.

See below

C Culham said:

FAR part 12 solicitation that utilizes 52.212-1 not tailored - Maybe depending on the FAR part utilized for evaluation.  

FAR part 13 solicitation asking for quotes and specifically being evaluated under FAR part 13 ideals -  less risk of being tossed.

FAR part 14 solicitation - most likely would not survive.

FAR part 15 solicitation - LPTA most likely would not survive.  Trade-off less risk of being tossed but still a maybe of not surviving.

In all cases as a multiple offer, if allowed by the specific solicitation, it would most likely survive.

Carl, I’m curious. What does 52.215-1(c)(4) actually mean? See below 

And if “any combination” of items isn’t allowed, wouldn’t the solicitation “otherwise specif[y]” that? 

“(C)(4)   Unless otherwise specified in the solicitation, the offeror may propose to provide any item or combination of items.”

it appears to me that lotus was proposing combinations of items.

joel hoffman said:

Carl, I’m curious. What does 52.215-1(c)(4) actually mean? See below 

And if “any combination” of items isn’t allowed, wouldn’t the solicitation “otherwise specif[y]” that? 

“(C)(4)   Unless otherwise specified in the solicitation, the offeror may propose to provide any item or combination of items.”

it appears to me that lotus was proposing combinations of items.

Joel...It goes back to my earlier post.  My view is that it is not a combination of items it is contingent pricing on the items.  I guess others could read it as you do.

Carl, I thought that lotus proposed a price for each item as (probably) required by the solicitation Instructions.  

Then lotus is offering discounted pricing for a combination of optional line item 7 plus one or both of the next two optional line items. 

The offered prices seem clear to me.

I would say that “unless otherwise specified in the solicitation”, lotus may propose  to provide a price for a combination or combinations of items. This is assuming that provision 52.215-1 is in the solicitation. 

Of course we don’t know whether it is in the solicitation or if it is applicable.  lotus doesn’t appear to want to clarify that point or indicate one way or the other if he/she has a problem with directly asking the agency responsible for the solicitation whether the proposed discounts for combinations would be acceptable.

The idea was suggested and endorsed  to submit two offers  - one with no discounting and the other with the combination discounts. No feedback from lotus.

Instead lotus is asking for your specific opinion of acceptability  of the discounted combination of award of line item 7 with one or both of the other two optional line items in an on-line discussion forum. 

if It isn’t clear one way or the other then I think that it would be smart to go directly to those who will decide whether or not you can propose that way. 

The awarded contract price will be determined by  what if any options are exercised at award. 

The price will be adjusted If the government later awards one or more of the optional line items.

i think that its pretty straight forward. But I’m not the one awarding the contract. So either ask or submit two separate offers, if that is allowable.

joel hoffman said:

I thought that lotus proposed a price for each item as (probably) required by the solicitation Instructions.

Joel - My effort to explain once more my view.  Take it as you may as I fully understand what you are trying to say about the wording with my view that we are talking pricing of items that Lotus wants to provide not whether Lotus will provide an item or a combination of items as Lotus has already said that he/she wants to provide all of the items (combination).    Or in other words the offeror (Lotus) has decided to provide (and price) not just any item but a combination of items.  Yet the offeror wants to also provide contingent pricing on some of the items that it has combined, contingent pricing that does not seem to be allowed for in the current CLINs as described.  By description of  Lotus the Schedule that includes the CLINs does not carry an "if" that circles back to CLIN #7 it only, by Lotus's post, says that CLINs#8/9 are options that the government wants and needs to be priced.   Lotus wants its pricing to be dependent (contingent) on whether the government takes the #7 option something by my read so far of the scenario that the government has not said it wants with regard to pricing or pricing that is allowed by the solicitation.  The government wants a price for each option in case by example they do not want to take option #7 but option #8. 

In effect for evaluation purposes with no other action by the government I suspect the government would either say hey we are going to only evaluate your pricing all at $130 or we are not going to evaluate at all because you have placed a contingency on your pricing.

Carry on as you will 52.215-1 is done in my view.

Carl, a last thought. If provision 52.217-4 is in the contract, it may be simple enough to evaluate an offerors discounted prices, assuming that the government has enough funding to cover any or all of the options. 

Our organization’s policy (it may be in FAR or supplements) was to list the options by your priority preference, if funding is available. Accordingly, CLIN 7 should represent  the top priority. If there isn’t enough funds to award it, we would normally see what we could get with the funds available. I don’t know if that is the policy here. Simply speculating based upon my experience with evaluating options. 

52.217-4   Evaluation of Option Exercised at Time of Contract Award.

As prescribed in 17.208(b), insert a provision substantially the same as the following:

Evaluation of Options Exercised at Time of Contract Award (JUN 1988)

Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government's best interests, the Government will evaluate the total price for the basic requirement together with any option(s) exercised at the time of award.

(End of provision)

[53 FR 17860, May 18, 1988]

  Back to Top

52.217-5   Evaluation of Options.

As prescribed in 17.208(c), insert a provision substantially the same as the following:

Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990)

Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government's best interests, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(End of provision

if 52.217-5 is in the solicitation, it becomes a bit trickier as the government might not know how much, if any more funding will be available to award later. In that scenario, it might not be possible to evaluate discounted pricing.

Of course, if 52.217-3 Evaluarion exclusive of options is included., then there is no evaluation of offered discounts.  

At any rate, I recommend asking the agency who owns the solicitation or submit separate proposals. We don’t know if they will or won’t allow the discounting.

joel hoffman said:

enough funding to cover any or all of the options.

Best quote I can use for my thought.   I am familiar with the noted 52.217 clauses.  I would not go to them for definitive reasoning on whether to accept the contingent pricing.  Why?  Because my understanding of the wording and use of clauses is to overcome (lack of better term on my part) the requirement for competition or not when awarding options not for the purposes of what is being discussed in this thread.

joel hoffman said:

I recommend asking the agency who owns the solicitation or submit separate proposals

Agreed but I am a little leery about the first one.  Asking the agency could result in a non-answer and still leave the offeror wanting .  If there is a response that is yes, do it, my concern is that an idea that the offeror has for making their proposal in their eyes look more favorable may be offered to all offerors to do the same thing once the answer of yes go a head and do it is provided.

Submitting multiple responses is the best fit, as long as already noted, there is no prohibition in doing so.

PS - Throughout this thread I have avoided the conjecture of what is in the actual solicitation and attempted to deal in generalities because as noted -

On ‎9‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 5:25 AM, C Culham said:

With the above said I am not as poster here or would not as the CO make a determination without adequate information regarding the type of solicitation, the terms and conditions of the solicitation as they relate to offer submission and exactly how the offer is presented.

I think Lotus has enough to contemplate in moving forward.

Assuming multiple proposals can be prepared (and it is reasonably likely given that only prices are changing),

The proposal offering 3 CLIN's at $130 each runs the risk of losing on price.

The proposal offering contingent discounts runs the risk of being tossed as non-responsive.

Even if asked, the Govt is unlikely to say in advance what it will do.  And if it did take a stance and publish it, it would expose a competitive idea that we'd prefer not be exposed.

But, look at the Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990 language Joel Hoffman brought up.  ... the Government will evaluate .... by adding to total price for all options. 

So if it is to evaluate the total price for all options, and there are conditional discounts as described, then it appears that Govt would evaluate the option prices using all of CLIN's as if they were exercised,  (e.g. prices of $130 + $100 +$100).  That is unless somebody cries "not in the Government's best interest."  Is it likely somebody would do that?  (It probably matters only if the discounts make the price lower than a competing price.)

Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990)

Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government's best interests, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(End of provision

lotus said:

So if it is to evaluate the total price for all options, and there are conditional discounts as described, then it appears that Govt would evaluate the option prices using all of CLIN's as if they were exercised,  (e.g. prices of $130 + $100 +$100).  That is unless somebody cries "not in the Government's best interest."  Is it likely somebody would do that?  (It probably matters only if the discounts make the price lower than a competing price.)

...and also may depend upon how much funding is available for awarding options.  If there is enough to award #7 and at least one other, then the discounted prices could be applicable and attractive/competitive. 

Good luck.

joel hoffman said:

and also may depend upon how much funding is available for awarding options.  If there is enough to award #7 and at least one other, then the discounted prices could be applicable and attractive/competitive. 

Good luck.

Agreed with a little twist.   Funding availability changes.  The government might award an option at award but also might wait until the 11th hour of the option availability to exercise said option.  By experience there were many times where options were added to solicitation/contracts with the hope and I might even say knowledge that additional funding will come down the line at some later date.   That said I have also seen options used based on premise that the government knows it has the money but does not know it will want the option items.

joel hoffman said:

Is it likely somebody would do that?

Anything is likely but using the scenario as offered I do not see it being likely in this particular situation.

On 10/2/2018 at 4:18 PM, lotus said:

Even if asked, the Govt is unlikely to say in advance what it will do.  And if it did take a stance and publish it, it would expose a competitive idea that we'd prefer not be exposed.

We don’t know but I am assuming that the solicitation has been issued and that Provision 52.215-1 is included. 

If you are asking whether alternative proposals are allowed and/or if proposers can propose on any combination of items, specifically using your bidding strategy, you may request that it not be disclosed because it would reveal your confidential business strategy. Cite FAR 15.201 “Exchanges with industry before receipt of proposals”, paragraph (f) and quote or highlight the prohibition against revealing your confidential strategy:

“(f) ...After release of the solicitation, the contracting officer must be the focal point of any exchange with potential offerors. When specific information about a proposed acquisition that would be necessary for the preparation of proposals is disclosed to one or more potential offerors, that information must be made available to the public as soon as practicable, but no later than the next general release of information, in order to avoid creating an unfair competitive advantage. Information provided to a potential offeror in response to its request must not be disclosed if doing so would reveal the potential offeror's confidential business strategy, and is protected under  3.104 or subpart 24.2****_._ When conducting a presolicitation or preproposal conference, materials distributed at the conference should be made available to all potential offerors, upon request.”

You may feel them out first by advising that you have a competitive idea, that you want to know if it will be acceptable under Provision 52.215-1 (c) (4)  and that you want to know if they will will keep it confidential and not publish it. 

If the solicitation hasn’t been issued, I believe that you may ask for a one on one meeting with the KO under 15.201 (c) (4).  I’ve been involved with such meetings with potential offerors several times. The potential proposer’s strategy was kept confidential. The ground rules were agreed upon at the outset. 

Of course, not all contracting shops are knowledgeable or willing to engage in anything out of the simple or ordinary solicitation procedures or their comfort zone. 

There is also a possibility if you describe your specific strategy that you might alert the government that the way the options are presented,  proposers might have to duplicate fixed expenses in all the optional Clins if only one option can be awarded and if it isn’t the first option listed. They might want to fix that by clarifying the priority of the options,  by informing proposers where to include the fixed expenses, or by allowing discounts for multiple awards of options.  

In that event, you’d lose your bidding advantage but wouldn’t have to duplicate those expenses...

Is the Government really this ill-equipped to handle a volume discount? I would think a reasonable evaluation of price could include some sort of weighted average price, given the estimated likelihood of exercising a given option, or buying a certain volume.

RightSaidFed said:

Is the Government really this ill-equipped to handle a volume discount?

 It would appear so.  

We don’t know what the instant solicitation says or if Provision 52.215-1 (specifically paragraph (c) (4) )is in it. 

“(4) Unless otherwise specified in the solicitation, the offeror may propose to provide any item or combination of items.”

Most of the solicitations that I have ever been involved with do require pricing for all items. But I have never seen where it prohibited pricing for combinations of items.

So far herein, nobody seems to be able to  describe how it is possible to evaluate any offer with alternative pricing for a combination of items. It seems clear to me that it is allowed, unless prohibited and it is possible to evaluate it.

I brought up the possibility of offering price for a combination of items. So far nobody in this thread seems to know what that means or what paragraph (c)(4) means. 

 I suggested that the potential proposer ask the government if they would except discounts for combination offers. In addition, I suggested how the potential proposer could ask for confidentiality before describing his idea,  On the basis of competitive strategy..

An alternative which may work, is to submit a separate proposal with only pricing of a combination of items.  

Theoretically, it should be relatively simple for a potential proposer to inquire and find out whether multiple proposals are acceptable.

Years ago, It wasn’t uncommon in my local organization for pricing of optional items to have proposers identify alternative package pricing of the options. 

Before that (70’s through early 90’s), we used “additive alternate” bid items for pricing combinations of items. 

We were then told to use options instead of additive alternates. “They are easier to use”.

On ‎10‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 5:12 AM, RightSaidFed said:

Is the Government really this ill-equipped to handle a volume discount?

The government is well equipped to handle volume discounts if that is what they are looking for.   In the case at hand the government wants optional items based on specific needs yet the offeror wants to not only try and meet the needs of the government by offering on the optional items the offeror wants to change the game to offer pricing that guarantees a certain volume that would be priced on a volume discount ideal and if that certain volume is not accomplished the volume discount would not apply. 

If the government likes the idea of the offeror it could change to accommodate all offerors pricing on a volume discount or possibly even accept the offerors offer without accommodating offers from all others on the same basis with the rub that if government tips to changing its ideal of optional items based on need to contingent pricing based on volume ideal the risk is that other offerors might feel the government changed the game without letting them know.

On ‎10‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 5:12 AM, RightSaidFed said:

I would think a reasonable evaluation of price could include some sort of weighted average price, given the estimated likelihood of exercising a given option, or buying a certain volume.

Doing so would in my view change the governments intent from wanting something on an optional basis to wanting volume discount pricing.

Consider as well FAR 17.206 –

 (a) In awarding the basic contract, the contracting officer shall, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, evaluate offers for any option quantities or periods contained in a solicitation when it has been determined prior to soliciting offers that the Government is likely to exercise the options. (See 17.208.)

(b) The contracting officer need not evaluate offers for any option quantities when it is determined that evaluation would not be in the best interests of the Government and this determination is approved at a level above the contracting officer. An example of a circumstance that may support a determination not to evaluate offers for option quantities is when there is a reasonable certainty that funds will be unavailable to permit exercise of the option.

On 10/18/2018 at 9:06 AM, joel hoffman said:

I brought up the possibility of offering price for a combination of items. So far nobody in this thread seems to know what that means or what paragraph (c)(4) means.

Carl, can you please tell me what it means?

if it means what I think it means then all other firms can also offer discounts for certain combinations under the current terms of the competition.

joel hoffman said:

Carl, can you please tell me what it means?

Joel - We discussed this in exchanges on October 1 in this discussion thread.  As I said some may see it as you do yet I am not convinced.   I will just leave it at that.

C Culham said:

Joel - We discussed this in exchanges on October 1 in this discussion thread.  As I said some may see it as you do yet I am not convinced.   I will just leave it at that.

Carl, I’m not asking you to agree. I asked what prices for a combination of items means to you.  You called offering alternate prices for combinations of items “contingent pricing” but you haven’t explained what a combination of items might look like.  

Lotus gave a price for each item and then would offer lower individual prices for two of the items in combination with another item. It’s simple and straightforward. 

If it isn’t prohibited in the solicitation, the provision says offering combinations of items is allowed. It doesn’t prescribe how that has to be done. It doesn’t say that the government has to define or prescribe combinations of items or how to price them. 

Maybe all Lotus has to do is change the wording of the alternate pricing to say that Item XXX would be $xxx dollars in combination with award of CLIN YYY at the stated price for CLIN YYY.

...and reference paragraph (c)(4) of  Provision 52.215-1

If lotus submits a separate proposal, I would recommend using a term akin to “in combination with item xxx at the stated price for item xxx..” as I described above. 

And reference the paragraph in 52.215-1...

joel hoffman said:

You called offering alternate prices for combinations of items “contingent pricing”

Joel - No I did not.  Please go back and re-read my posts.  I attempted to explain that offering pricing on a combination of items was different than conditioning a price on two of the items (8&9) based on some event that event being the ordering of another item (7).  

joel hoffman said:

Carl, I’m not asking you to agree

Yes you are.  I do not see the wording of pricing combination of items found in 52.215-1 as having any applicability to OP's situation.  You do but I do not agree.

So, you do not think that it is a “combination of items”. I am still asking: What is an “offer for a combination of items“?   Why do you keep avoiding answering my question? You keep telling me what it isn’t.

On 10/18/2018 at 10:06 AM, joel hoffman said:

“(4) Unless otherwise specified in the solicitation, the offeror may propose to provide any item or combination of items.”

   *   *   *

I brought up the possibility of offering price for a combination of items. So far nobody in this thread seems to know what that means or what paragraph (c)(4) means.

It seems easy to me.  One possible reading:  if the solicitation asks for CLIN 001, 002, and 003, an offeror could propose to provide any of the following—

- CLIN 001

- CLIN 002

- CLIN 003

- CLIN 001 and 002

- CLIN 001 and 003

- CLIN 002 and 003

Another possible reading:  if a solicitation asks for ten tractor-trailer sets in a single CLIN, an offeror could propose to provide only trailers.

None of the above is an alternate proposal.

ji20874 said:

It seems easy to me.  One possible reading:  if the solicitation asks for CLIN 001, 002, and 003, an offeror could propose to provide any of the following—

- CLIN 001

- CLIN 002

- CLIN 003

- CLIN 001 and 002

- CLIN 001 and 003

- CLIN 002 and 003

Another possible reading:  if a solicitation asks for ten tractor-trailer sets in a single CLIN, an offeror could propose to provide only trailers.

None of the above is an alternate proposal.

Thanks, ji.  But, Gee. Aren’t those combinations “contingent” upon award according to the combinations? 

Just kidding.

joel hoffman said:

Aren’t those combinations “contingent” upon award according to the combinations?

So Joel is this different than ji's illustration or is it the same?

CLIN 001

- CLIN 002

- CLIN 003

- CLIN 001 and 002 and my price is $100 for each but if you do not award me CLIN 003 my price is $130

- CLIN 001 and 003 and my price is $100 for each but if you do not award me CLIN 002 my price is $130

- CLIN 002 and 003 and my price is $100 for each but if you do not award me CLIN 001 my price is $130

And for clarity get off the "contingent" band wagon.  I stated and have clarified to you several times that the pricing proposed by the OP could be viewed as "material defect with regard to pricing by adding a condition that is not stipulated in the contract line item schedule"

C Culham said:

And for clarity get off the "contingent" band wagon.  I stated and have clarified to you several times that the pricing proposed by the OP could be viewed as "material defect with regard to pricing by adding a condition that is not stipulated in the contract line item schedule"

Yes it could be viewed that way by someone who doesn’t know better. 

The OP offers a price for each CLIN, as probably was required by the Solicitation instructions. 

Then the Op offers a lower price for the second and third option, if the first option is awarded. That is offering two combinations. The provision doesn’t require that the line item schedule stipulate a combination discount. In order to offer one. And state that it is being done consistent with 52.215-1 (c)(4). 

If it is a Part 15 source selection , I don’t think that the government may reveal an offerors pricing strategy without its permission.  In my opinion, that would amount to transfusion of one competitors ideas  and improper disclosure of source selection information (see definition of source selection information in 41 USC Chapter 21, Section 2101).

it might be safer to separately price the discounts below the stated line items, like ji did. 

If the government knows that it can’t or won’t be able to award the first option, it knows the OP’s prices. 

If it intends to award the first option, it knows the prices for the other two options. 

If it will or might award the first option but not the other two, it knows the OP’s price for what it will or might award. 

The combinations are clear to the government. It’s not confusing. 

The government is free to take advantage of an offered discount or not to. 

If it is a Part 15 source selection , I don’t think that the government may reveal an offerors pricing strategy to other competitors without its permission.  In my opinion, that would amount to transfusion of one competitor's ideas  and is improper disclosure of source selection information (see definition of source selection information in 41 USC Chapter 21, Section 2101 at definition (7). I suggest marking it as restricted from disclosure per 52.215-1, (e) (1) and (2).

On 10/20/2018 at 11:22 AM, ji20874 said:

Another possible reading:  if a solicitation asks for ten tractor-trailer sets in a single CLIN, an offeror could propose to provide only trailers.

None of the above is an alternate proposal.

ji, I wasn’t asking about the first part of the paragraph (c)(4). I’m assuming ( here)  that the solicitation requires a price for each CLIN. What is in question is what an offer for a combination of items is. 

Here, there is a price for each line item, including three identical options.The OP takes no exceptions to the conditions. It has priced all the required items.

Then OP offers lower prices for two other identical options if the government awards the first listed option. Those are two combinations of items. The government stated that it could award any or all the options. The government has said that it is free to decide what if any options it will award. 

EDIT:  Let’s also be clear that Lotus stated in the original post that any one of the options, if awarded by itself, would need to carry a higher price. Its apparent that Lotus would have to recover certain fixed or one time costs to provide any one of the identical option quantity of the items. There is no guarantee that the government would award the first option by itself or with another option.

 Thus, a proposer would have to cover its risk if the government selected only the second or third option, skipping the first option. 

Sure , Lotus wants to be competitive.  Lotus also is saying that there is no need to charge the government two or three times for those fixed or onetime costs if it orders two or more options. Lotus wants to offer a win-win combination pricing arrangement. 

 I doubt that the government understands that the way they set up the options, as any or all of identical items, it is likely that the proposers will not be willing to risk offering reduced prices for award of any one of multiple options.

Lotus doesn’t want to ask the government, in order to avoid showing his/her hand. Lotus anticipates that the government may then amend the solicitation to encourage all proposers to allocate the fixed or one time costs to one line item. Lotus would then  lose a possible competitive advantage.  Fair enough.

On 10/18/2018 at 7:12 AM, RightSaidFed said:

Is the Government really this ill-equipped to handle a volume discount? I would think a reasonable evaluation of price could include some sort of weighted average price, given the estimated likelihood of exercising a given option, or buying a certain volume.

RSFed, from Lotus’s description of the solicitation language, it would appear that the government doesn’t want to be boxed in by prioritizing the option list for identical items and quantities. It may have decided to discourage “gaming” of the option prices by stating that it reserves the right to select any or all options in no particular order. 

The problem is that in order to recover their one time costs to provide the first quantity, proposers may likely have to include those same costs in each of the three identical option items. At least that is the sense that Lotus appears to have of the situation.

The government doesn’t appear to realize that there may be economy of scale in the purchase of more of the same items. Unfortunately, it didn’t consider that in design of the CLIN schedule in the solicitation. 

That may be why 52.215-1 (c)(4) allows proposers to offer combinations of items.  Let competition encourage ingenuity, when the government doesn’t always see opportunities for savings. 

I saw that frequently from the local and expat firms  in our mid 90’s end of year rush of IFB’s and RFP’s for military O&M funded projects in Panama and Central/South America. They were all advertised, subject to availability of (literally) last minute year end funding. The PM’s, Finance and Accounting and Contracting worked until midnight, local time on 30 Sep. The Army and Air Force commands were MIPRing in funds as they identified them at the last days and hours. 

In later years, the USACE Pacific Ocean Division awarded projects for the other USACE Districts until midnight, Honolulu time on 30 Sep. 

Those firms located or working in Central/South America  would often offer discounts for combinations of optional bid items or even for combinations of multiple contract awards or multiple bid schedule awards. This was done separately from the advertised CLINs in the schedule by adding explanatory wording. 

it was a win-win routine. The Military needed the projects and there was intense competition for the next year’s workload for those firms. 

Not all projects were funded but everyone knew the situation and participated,

I sometimes become discouraged at the seeming lack of imagination and creativity by some contracting personnel and project managers for anything other than simplying their jobs, cutting their workload,  avoiding discussions, not bargaining for better performance or better pricing and fear of  “possible protests”.

Shame on the instant contracting office if they reject legitimate discount pricing for combinations of items for multiple options. Why would they offer three identical options if they didn’t want more quantities, if affordable and within the budget?  The solicitation provision at 52.215-1 certainly appears to allow for that, even if the government didn’t realize that strategy when it set up the CLIN schedule. 

I say, go for it with a separate proposal, Lotus and see what happens!  Good luck.

joel hoffman said:

I sometimes become discouraged at the seeming lack of imagination and creativity by some contracting personnel and project managers for anything other than simplying their jobs, cutting their workload,  avoiding discussions, not bargaining for better performance or better pricing and out of fear of  “possible protests”.

While I agree with ye meesage, me thinks yarr, "being a bit too hard on the Beaver."  Ye can't discount the pressure on the contracting office to speedily get things on contract for the   land-lubbin' program office.  In me experience, schedule takes precedence above all else a little too often as a result.  Avoidin' a protest at all costs may have ye partin' with a few more doubloons but it keeps ye on schedule.  All me experience is sole-source so I may be jibber-jabbin' out of me swim lane.

Contracting Pirate said:

While I agree with ye meesage, me thinks yarr, "being a bit too hard on the Beaver."  Ye can't discount the pressure on the contracting office to speedily get things on contract for the   land-lubbin' program office.  In me experience, schedule takes precedence above all else a little too often as a result.  Avoidin' a protest at all costs may have ye partin' with a few more doubloons but it keeps ye on schedule.  All me experience is sole-source so I may be jibber-jabbin' out of me swim lane.

 Aye, Matey!  The office that I was in charge of was responsible for all negotiated acquisition both competitive and sole source. I enjoyed negotiating contracts, modifications, claims, termination settlements, takeover agreements, etc.