Recommendation for award is based quantity; POB Destination, Ket 30 PROPOSED CONTRACTS 12. ITEM 66-11(h) 13. POINT OF PRODUCTION Beaverton, Oregon 14. LABOR 15. AMOUNT $1,557,864. 538,835. 370,020. 65-21 66-14 66-16(0) 66-19(h) 25.000. (Model D32-England ) 21,677,196. 66-23(6) (Models 314,323,326,) 541,672. 25.000. 66-291(a)(b)(d)(e)(f) (12 line itens) 6625 574.693. $25.310.481. on discounts ranging from 34% to 9% depending on days, from the Retail Pricelist, homenat Further negotiation resulted in better quantity breakdown and additional discounts ranging from 31% to 9%. Certain products may be combined for higher discounts within Special Item Number. Recommendation is made that MOL for this award be $250,000. Discounts, teras and conditions are considered fair and reasonable. RELEASED 12 PM DISCOUNT WORTH IS: 4 for 66-16; 66-14; 66-21; 66-23; 66-290; 3/5/77 PPR P. GROINNE 4 for 66-11 and 66-19 65-291 (If this space is lasufficient, submit the ensure price analysis on separate continuation sheet(s) and make appropriate reference shereto above.) 1. PREPARE THIS FORM FOR EACH SPECIAL ITEM NUMBER ON WHICH AN OFFER IS SUBMITTED. 4. UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED BY OFFEROR, PRODUCTS MAY BE COMBINED TO QUALIFY FOR QUANTITY OR DOLLAR-VOLUME DISCOUNTS. 5. IF ADDITIONAL SPACE IS REQUIRED, EXACT REPRODUCTION OF THIS FORM SHALL BE MADE BY THE OFFEROR. DETAILS ARE INCLUDED IN PRICELIST STATE PAGE NUMBER (PAGE NUMBER (c) Rebates of any kind, including year-end discounts (d) Mältiplo unit pricing pin (e) fatire discounts of any type which cover items beingg 。pered!. (1) Reduced prices on samples, demonstrator models, or floor models........ See attached Schedule A Display Products, covering 600-series Display Monitors (66-21)___ N/A (1) Are any of the items offered sold under any other trade name(s) and/or model designation(s)? Yes (If yes, furnish detailed information). NO X (IF ADDITIONAL SPACE IS REQUIRED, ATTACH CONTINUATION SHEET) 3. APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF MODEL OR CATALOG NUMBERS BEING OFFERED: 4. APPROXIMATE ANNUAL VOLUME OF SALES TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: (a) Under Federal Supply Schedule Contract... (b) Government Sales other than Schedule Contract..... 300 (c) Percentage of sales to Federal Government is what percentage o. total annual The Federal government has long had numerous problems in buying commercial products. At the same time, the government spent $2.5 billion last year for paper, pencils, computers and many, many warehouses full of furniture. All of these commercial products were bought through GSA, either through negotiated contracts, sealed bids or from multiple award schedules. Each method of buying has advantages and disadvantages. While the lowest bid from a qualified contractor almost always gives the government the lowest possible price, the use of detailed specifications to describe exactly what it is the government wants to buy is open to manipulation. By changing only a word or two in a 100,000 word specification, the specification can be discreetly amended to ensure that only one manufacturer qualifies to bid on the contract. There are any number of other ways a dishonest contractor can take advantage of the government. Until recently, however, it was assumed that in the area of multiple award schedules, we had a trade off between paying higher prices as opposed to less opportunity for abuse. In our opinion, that assumption is erroneous, as we believe that multiple award contracting is as vulnerable to abuse as any other contracting method, and perhaps more so. In a multiple award contract, a contractor comes forward with his product and certifies to GSA that it is being sold in substantial quantities in the commercial market. He then submits his pricing data to the contracting officer, which describes all the various discounts he gives to all kinds of customers. Using data which the contractor certifies as being current, complete and accurate, the GSA contracting officer then negotiates the best possible price he can for the government. A multiple award contract is frequently a license to sell to the government at prices considerably higher than prices charged other customers. The Comptroller General has testified that we are paying about $200 million dollars a year more than we should be. The reason we are paying so much more is because the multiple award contracting system is not operated at GSA the way it was designed to operate. GAO issued a report on this subject entitled "Ineffective Management of GSA's Multiple Award Schedule Program, a Costly, Serious and Longstanding Problem." In this report GAO stated that GSA contracting officers do very little negotiating. GAO found that of 1,473 bids submitted to GSA, GSA contracting officers rejected only 30. In a universe of 8,000 multiple award contracts awarded every year, GSA contracting officers are literally snowed under by the paperwork. As a result, the quality of the negotiations suffers because contracting officers must rely heavily on the integrity of the contractor. Until Commissioner Tom Morris started to take the pruning shears to the program, the multiple award program had gotten completely out of hand. Anybody, almost without exception, who desired to sell products to the government was routinely awarded a contract. According to the GAO report, in the few instances where GSA officials resisted an award, a complaint from the contractor, or an industry group, or a Congressional letter of inquiry was enough to induce a complete turnaround by GSA. |