Previous Unit Price Tuff Tools Unit Price Original Tuff Tools Unit Price Revised Elardy Tools Unit Tricc Item No. 1 S2.70 $5.15 $7.30 $ 8.40 2 $2.75 $5.20 $6.35 $ 7.60 S3.20) S5.15 S8.00 $10.00 3 4 $3.75 S6.55 $7.30 $ 8.65 $4.20 S7.55 $9.45 $10.40 In performing the price analysis, the contracting officer considered comparisons with both historical prices paid and the prices quoted by the two competitors. For example, Tuff Tools revised unit price offer for Item #1 is 90 percent higher than the Grm's original offer and 170 percent higher than the previous contract unit price. Comparison Tuff Tools Original Unit Price/ Previous Unit Price Comparison Tuff Tools Revised Lnit Price Previous Unit Price Comparison Hardy Tools Unit Price Tuff Tools Revised Item No. 1 1907 117010 + 15% 89% 1 131 + 20% 3 - 70% | 1511 -25% 1 75% + 100% + 154: 5 - 80% + 125% + 10% The contracting ollicer found that Tulf Tools' prices were fair and reasonable based on the available competition. The price determination noted that the price increases are duc, in part, to the change in manufacturer as a result of the previous termination. The determination further noted that it is in the best interest of the Goverunent to pay higher prices to obtain better quality supplies in a timely manner. Answer the following questions: 1. Do you concur in the contracting officer's decision? 2. What other actions might the contracting officer have taken in determining price reasonableness? 619-6-4 Tuff and Iardy Tools - Comparing Prices (15 points) Two offers were recived under a request for proposals (RTP) for 1,000 each of several general purpose wrenches. As shown in the table below, Tuff Tools was low on all items. During discussions with Tuff Tools, the contracting officer determined that the firm was planning to provide wrenches purchased from Loggins Tools. Loggins was the successful offeror on the last contract but was subsequently defaulted for failure to make timely deliveries. Because of tho recent default, the contracting officer advised Tuff Tools that Loggins Tools was an unacceptablo source of supply. As a result, Tuff Tools decided to provide tools produced in-house. Tuff Tools' final proposal revision revised its price as a result of the negotiations. However, Tutt Tools remained the low offeror on all items. Hardy Tools' final offer confirmed the firm's original offer. The following table summarizes relevant pricing information. 619-6-3 Previous Unit Price Tuff Tools Unit Price Original Tuff Tools Unit Price Revised Elardy Tools Unit Tricc Item No. 1 S2.70 $5.15 $7.30 $ 8.40 2 $2.75 $5.20 $6.35 $ 7.60 S3.20) S5.15 S8.00 $10.00 3 4 $3.75 S6.55 $7.30 $ 8.65 $4.20 S7.55 $9.45 $10.40 In performing the price analysis, the contracting officer considered comparisons with both historical prices paid and the prices quoted by the two competitors. For example, Tuff Tools revised unit price offer for Item #1 is 90 percent higher than the Grm's original offer and 170 percent higher than the previous contract unit price. Comparison Tuff Tools Original Unit Price/ Previous Unit Price Comparison Tuff Tools Revised Lnit Price Previous Unit Price Comparison Hardy Tools Unit Price Tuff Tools Revised Item No. 1 1907 117010 + 15% 89% 1 131 + 20% 3 - 70% | 1511 -25% 1 75% + 100% + 154: 5 - 80% + 125% + 10% The contracting ollicer found that Tulf Tools' prices were fair and reasonable based on the available competition. The price determination noted that the price increases are duc, in part, to the change in manufacturer as a result of the previous termination. The determination further noted that it is in the best interest of the Goverunent to pay higher prices to obtain better quality supplies in a timely manner. Answer the following questions: 1. Do you concur in the contracting officer's decision? 2. What other actions might the contracting officer have taken in determining price reasonableness? 619-6-4 Tuff and Iardy Tools - Comparing Prices (15 points) Two offers were recived under a request for proposals (RTP) for 1,000 each of several general purpose wrenches. As shown in the table below, Tuff Tools was low on all items. During discussions with Tuff Tools, the contracting officer determined that the firm was planning to provide wrenches purchased from Loggins Tools. Loggins was the successful offeror on the last contract but was subsequently defaulted for failure to make timely deliveries. Because of tho recent default, the contracting officer advised Tuff Tools that Loggins Tools was an unacceptablo source of supply. As a result, Tuff Tools decided to provide tools produced in-house. Tuff Tools' final proposal revision revised its price as a result of the negotiations. However, Tutt Tools remained the low offeror on all items. Hardy Tools' final offer confirmed the firm's original offer. The following table summarizes relevant pricing information. 619-6-3
