PGI 215.404-1 Proposal analysis techniques.

(a) General.

(i) The objective of proposal analysis is to ensure that the final agreed-to price is fair and reasonable.

(A) When the contracting officer needs data to determine price reasonableness and the offeror will

not furnish that data, use the following sequence of steps to resolve the issue:

(i) The contracting officer should make it clear what data is required and why it is needed to

determine fair and reasonable prices, and should be flexible in requesting data in existing formats

with appropriate explanations from the offeror.

(ii) If the offeror refuses to provide the data, the contracting officer should elevate the issue within

the contracting activity.

(iii) Contracting activity management shall, with support from the contracting officer, discuss the

issue with appropriate levels of the offeror’s management.

(iv) If the offeror continues to refuse to provide the data, contracting activity management shall

elevate the issue to the head of the contracting activity for a decision in accordance with FAR

15.403-3(a)(4).

(v) The contracting officer shall document the contract file to describe—

(a) The data requested and the contracting officer’s need for that data;

(b) Why there is currently no other alternative but to procure the item from this particular source;

and

(c) A written plan for avoiding this situation in the future (e.g., develop a second source by...; bring

the procurement in house to the Government by...).

(vi) Consistent with the requirements at FAR 15.304 and 42.1502 and the DoD Guide to Collection

and Use of Past Performance Information, Version 3, dated May 2003, the contracting officer shall,

unless exempted by the HCA, provide input into the past performance system, noting the offeror’s

refusal to provide the requested information.

(B) In some cases, supplies or services that are not subject to TINA may require a cost analysis (see

paragraph (c) of this section). This will occur when a price analysis is not sufficient for determining

prices to be fair and reasonable. In such cases, the contracting officer should consider the need for a

Defense Contract Audit Agency audit of the cost data.

(C) Particular attention should be paid to sole source commercial products or commercial services.

While the order of preference at FAR 15.402 must be followed, if the contracting officer cannot

determine price reasonableness without obtaining data other than cost or pricing data from the

offeror, at a minimum, the contracting officer must obtain appropriate data on the prices at which

the same or similar items have been sold previously (often previous sales data was the basis of the

commercial item determination and must be requested during price analysis of the data provided by

the offeror). If previous sales data is not sufficient to determine price reasonableness, the

contracting officer must obtain “data other than certified cost or pricing data” and, if necessary,
perform a cost analysis.

(D) Analysis of termination proposals, including termination of any contract scope, should not rely

solely on earned value management budgets or estimates for estimating the costs of all work

deleted, or the cost of deleted work already performed (reference FAR Subpart 15.4, Table

15-2—Instructions for Submitting Cost/Price Proposals When Certified Cost or Pricing Data are

Required, columns (2) and (3) of section III.B., Change Orders, Modifications, and Claims).

(b) Price analysis .

(i) See the Department of Defense Guidebook for Acquiring Commercial Items, Part B: Pricing

Commercial Items, for detailed guidance about techniques and approaches to pricing commercial

products and commercial services.

(v) Contracting officers must obtain and document sufficient data to confirm that previous prices

paid by the Government were based on a thorough price and/or cost analysis. For example, it would

not be sufficient to use price(s) from a database paid by another contracting officer without

understanding the type of analysis that was performed to determine the reasonableness of the

price(s), and without verifying that the quantities were similar for pricing purposes. This does not

necessarily need to be another analysis, but there should be coordination with the other office that

acknowledges an analysis was performed previously.

(vii) See the Department of Defense Guidebook for Acquiring Commercial Items, Part B: Pricing

Commercial Items, for information about how to obtain advisory assistance from the DoD cadre of

experts in the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Commercial Item Group (CIG) via

email at dcma.boston-ma.eastern-rc.mbx.Commercial@mail.mil or at

http://www.dcma.mil/commercial-item-group/.

(c) Cost analysis.

(i) When the contracting officer cannot obtain sufficient data to perform a price analysis in

accordance with the pricing steps in FAR 15.404-1(b), a cost analysis is required.

(ii) When a solicitation is not subject to TINA and a cost analysis is required, the contracting officer

must clearly communicate to the offeror the cost data that will be needed to determine if the

proposed price is fair and reasonable.

(iii) To the extent possible, when cost or pricing data are not required to be submitted in accordance

with Table 15-2 of FAR 15.408, the contracting officer should accept the cost data in a format

consistent with the offeror’s records.

(iv) The contracting officer must always consider the need for field pricing support from the Defense

Contract Management Agency, the Defense Contract Audit Agency, and/or other agencies.

(e) Technical analysis. Requesting technical assistance is particularly important when evaluating

pricing related to items that are “similar to” items being purchased or commercial products or

commercial services that are “of a type” or require “minor modifications.” Technical analysis can

assist in pricing these types of items by identifying any differences between the item being acquired

and the “similar to” item. In particular, the technical review can assist in evaluating the changes

that are required to get from the “similar to” item, to the item being solicited, so the contracting

officer can determine sufficient price/cost analysis techniques when evaluating that the price for the

item being solicited is fair and reasonable. See the Department of Defense Guidebook for Acquiring

Commercial Items, Part B: Pricing Commercial Items, for information about how to obtain advisory
assistance from the DoD cadre of experts in the (DCMA) (CIG) via email at dcma.boston-ma.easternrc.mbx.Commercial@mail.mil or at http://www.dcma.mil/commercial-item-group/.

(h) Review and justification of pass-through contracts.

(2)(A) This requirement applies to acquisitions that include the clause at FAR 52.215-23, Limitations

on Pass-Through Charges, as prescribed at FAR 15.408(n)(2)(i)(B). When considering alternative

approaches or making the determination that the contracting approach selected is in the best

interest of the Government as required by FAR 15.404-1(h)(2), consider the following elements:

(1) The requirement, proposed prime contractor, and overall proposed contract value.

(2) The information provided in response to the provision at FAR 52.215-22, Limitations on PassThrough Charges—Identification of Subcontract Effort, regarding the subcontracts, and the

estimated value of the proposed subcontracts.

(3) The availability of alternative existing contracts that would allow direct access to the

subcontractor, such as existing indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts, Federal Supply

Schedule contracts, or Governmentwide agency contracts. Perform market research as appropriate.

(4) Potential cost savings of directly contracting with the subcontractor.

(5) Feasibility of competition for the subcontracted effort or justification for single source

procurement.

(6) Potential impacts to the contracting and program schedule for implementing a direct contract

with the subcontractors or conducting a competition for the subcontracted effort.

(7) Changes in performance risk as result of eliminating prime contractor oversight and substituting

direct government oversight. Risks may include loss of prime contractor knowledge of integration

and program requirements, availability of government contracting and contract administration

personnel, reduced system or program accountability of the prime contractor who is no longer

responsible for the entire effort, impact on warranties.

(8) Subcontractor past performance and experience directly managing programs of this size.

(B) DoD components shall include reviews of compliance in routine procurement management

reviews or other inspections.

Parent topic: PGI 215.404 Proposal analysis.