This Appendix provides joint guidance by OMB and The General Services Administration (GSA) for use in cost comparisons involving the provision of motor vehicle fleet management services. It apples to conversions to or from in-house, contract or interservice support agreement (ISSA). Agencies should consider the costs, benefits and feasibility of using the agency's fleet management system, the GSA Interagency Fleet Management System (IFMS), other ISSA providers and qualified commercial management providers.
1. Cost comparisons will comply with Part I and Part II of this Supplement, and as discussed in this Appendix.
2. Cost comparisons should distinguish between the benefits of centralized Government vehicle acquisition and the potential benefits of fleet acquisition, operation, maintenance, and disposal management support services. Solicitations should permit or may require offerors to compete vehicle asset costs separately from fleet management services.
3. In accordance with Part I, Chapter 2 of this Supplement, all Government offerors will certify that their performance cost estimates or reimbursable rates are calculated in accordance with this Supplement.
4. Agencies may include all of their fleet requirements, including those currently being met by the GSA/IFMS or the private sector. Vehicles currently provided by the GSA/IFMS may be included in the agency's in-house cost estimate as IFMS vehicles.
C. Developing the requesting agency's in-house motor vehicle fleet management costs
1. The requesting agency's in-house costs are calculated as provided in Parts I and II of this Supplement and entered on Lines 1 through 7 as appropriate. Care should be taken to separate vehicle asset costs (cost of vehicles) from vehicle acquisition and other administrative management support costs.
D. Developing comparable motor vehicle fleet costs
1. Competitions between a requesting agency, private sector offeror, the GSA/IFMS or another ISSA offeror may require that the requesting agency make certain adjustments in scope and cost to ensure that the cost comparison is equitable. These scope and cost adjustments, as discussed below, include:
--Contract Administration Costs
--One-time Conversion Costs
--Gain/Loss on Disposal/Transfer of Assets
--Federal Income Taxes
--Other Adjustment Costs
2. Contract Price (Line 9 and Line 16).--The contract price is the price proposed by the lowest priced, fully qualified commercial offeror, IFMS or ISSA offeror. This will be obtained by issuing a solicitation requesting offers. The agency should be careful that the solicitation accurately describes its fleet management needs.
3. Contract administration costs (Line 10 and Line 17).
Include costs, as appropriate from Part II Table 3-1.
4. One-time conversion costs (Line 11 and Line 18).
5. Gain on disposal of assets (Line 12 and Line 19).
6. Federal income tax (Line 13 and Line 20).
7. Conversion differential (Line 7, Line 14 and Line 21).
The standard minimum differential, as provided in Part II of this Supplement, shall be applied to the contract, IFMS and ISSA offers. If the cost comparison is being conducted to determine if motor vehicle fleet management services should be converted from contract, IFMS or ISSA performance to in-house agency operation, the conversion differential is added (on Line 7) to the in-house performance cost estimate. If the cost comparison is being conducted to determine if motor vehicle fleet management services should be converted from in-house operation to contract, IFMS or ISSA performance, the conversion differential is added (on Line 14 and Line 21) to the contract, IFMS or ISSA performance cost estimates.
8. Other IFMS/ISSA Scope Adjustments (Line 22).
E. Motor vehicle cost comparison
1. A Motor Vehicle Cost Comparison Form (MVCCF) has been developed. Use of this form will help agencies move through the cost comparison in a structured manner. The Form has been set up with five sections. Each section relates to a different set of costs or to the evaluation itself. Within each section, the appropriate cost elements have been shown.
2. Each cost listed is projected for all periods of the cost comparison. The first year will reflect current estimated costs. For each of the following years, the inflation factors provided by this Supplement shall be used for each element of cost that is affected by inflation. A minimum of one year and three option years will be used for comparative purposes.
3. With the completion of the MVCCF, the agency may evaluate the alternatives. In order to do this, the total Lines (Lines 8, 15 and 23) should be entered on Lines 24, 25 and 26, respectively. The decision is based upon the lowest overall cost to the Government over the minimum five-year cost comparison period. Enter the decision as appropriate.
THE A-76/MV COST COMPARISON FORM FOR MOTOR VEHICLE FLEETS Performance Periods (Fiscal Years) A. DEVELOPMENT OF IN-HOUSE COSTS Base Option Option Option Option Year Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Total ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ------- 1. Personnel 2. Material 3. Other Direct 4. Cost of Capital 5. Overhead 6. Additional 7. Conversion Differential --- --- --- --- --- ---- 8. Total In-house B. DEVELOPMENT OF CONTRACT COSTS 9. Contract Price 10. Contract Administration 11. One-time Conversion 12. Gain on Disposal 13. Federal Income Taxes ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 14. Conversion Differential ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ------- 15. Total Adjusted Contract Price C. DEVELOPMENT OF IFMS OR ISSA COSTS 16. IFMS/ISSA cost estimate 17. Contract Administration 18. One-time Conversion 19. Gain on Disposal 20. Federal Income Taxes ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 21. Conversion Differential 22. Other Scope Adjustments ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ------ 23. Total Adjusted IFMS or ISSA Price D. COST COMPARISON 24. In-House -------- 25. Contract -------- 26. IFMS and/or ISSA -------- E. DECISION _____ Retain In-House _____ Contract _____ Consolidate to GSA/IFMS or ISSA _____ Convert from Contract to: In-house, IFMS or ISSA THE A-76/MV COST COMPARISON FORM FOR MOTOR VEHICLE FLEETS 27. In-House MEO Certified By:_____________ Date: _______ __________________ Office and Title "I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the in-house organization reflected in this cost comparison is the most efficient and cost effective organization that is fully capable of performing the scope of work and tasks required by the Performance Work Statement. I further certify that I have obtained from the appropriate authority concurrence that the organizational structure, as proposed, can and will be fully implemented - subject to this cost comparison, in accordance with all applicable Federal regulations. 28. In-House Cost Estimate Prepared By:______________ Date: _____ 29. Independent Reviewer: ________________ Date: ________ ___________________ Office and Title "I certify that I have reviewed the PWS, Management Plan, In- house, GSA/IFMS or ISSA cost estimates and supporting documentation available prior to bid opening and, to the best of my knowledge and ability, have determined that: (1) the ability of the in-house MEO to perform the work contained in the Performance Work Statement at the estimated costs included in this cost comparison is reasonably established and, (2) that all costs entered on the cost comparison have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Circular A-76 and its Supplement. 30. Cost Comparison Completed By:__________ Date: _____ 31. Contracting Officer: __________ Date: _____ 32. Tentative Cost Comparison Decision Announced By: __________ Date: _____ 33. Appeal Authority (if applicable): _________ Date: _____
List of Circulars | Circular A-76 | Table of Contents