Responses_to_Industry_-_Follow_Up.pdf

77 If it is determined that based on the information provided in response to number one above that an FPIF contract type is appropriate based on the scope of work, the following issues need to be addressed: The target profit percentage, profit adjustment formula percentage, and ceiling price percentage has been predetermined in the solicitation for the Fixed Price Incentive (firm Target) CLINs. The FAR contemplates a negotiation of these values—it does not complete that they be determined up front prior to receipt of proposals. FAR Subpart 16.403‐1, states, “A fixed‐price incentive (firm target) contract is appropriate when the parties can negotiate at the outset a firm target cost, target profit, and profit adjustment formula that will provide a fair and reasonable incentive and a ceiling that provides for the contractor to assume an appropriate share of the risk.” Establishing these values prior to receipt of proposals does not give offerors an opportunity to distinguish themselves among the competition or propose values they believed to be fair and reasonable. If the contract type remains unchanged, offerors should be given the opportunity to propose these values and the proposed values should be subject to negotiation and evaluation by the USAF.

The USG position is that the FAR reference cited (16.403‐1(b)) applies to sole source negotiations.

As such, no changes will be made to the F15 Supply Services solicitation criteria.

Clarification to Question 14, 15, & 25: All Critical Subcontractors can submit “up to 3” recent contracts for the past performance evaluation. They can submit 1, 2, or 3, but “no more than three (3)” as Section L states. This is in addition to the maximum of “three recent contracts that must be submitted by the offeror/joint venture member(s).”