Circular No. A-76 -- Revised
APPENDIX 7

Motor Vehicle Competitions

A. General

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.

B. Specific

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 Price
--Contract Administration Costs
--Additional Costs
--One-time Conversion Costs
--Gain/Loss on Disposal/Transfer of Assets
--Federal Income Taxes
--Other Adjustment Costs
--Minimum Differential

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).

1. One-time conversion costs may result when a contractor, IFMS or ISSA offeror takes over the operation of the fleet. This can involve the costs of the transfer of Government-owned supplies or temporary labor costs incurred to facilitate the transition to a new fleet manager.
   
   
2. When items of material become available for transfer to the contractor, IFMS or ISSA, material related conversion costs may result. If materials consumed as a part of the requesting agency's MEO are clearly identified in the PWS to be transferred to the contractor, IFMS or ISSA, the value of those materials and supplies are common costs and not considered a part of the comparison.
   
   
3. If, however, those same materials are not to be provided to the contractor, IFMS or ISSA offeror, but are instead to be transferred to another agency location or excessed, the value of that material should be subtracted from the contract, IFMS or ISSA offers as a net savings to the Government resulting from the conversion.

5. Gain on disposal of assets (Line 12 and Line 19).

1. If an agency requires the contractor, IFMS or ISSA to replace existing Government (agency) owned vehicles (assets) by a specific date, the projected fair market value of those existing assets, as established by generally available industry guides, are subtracted from the contractor's, IFMS or ISSA's cost estimates. These values represent a net "savings" caused by conversion.
   
   
2. Agencies may provide that vehicle replacement by the contractor, IFMS or ISSA offeror will be in accordance with the Government's existing or MEO replacement schedule. In this case, all parties to the competition should assume replacement at the same rate. Values from existing fleet to the Government apply to all alternatives equally.
   
   
3. Agencies may also continue to provide vehicles for contractor, IFMS or ISSA fleet management. No adjustments are necessary.
   
   
4. Finally, agencies may require replacement by the contractor, IFMS or ISSA offeror and may allow the IFMS or ISSA offeror to simply assume ownership of the existing fleet as Federal agencies. In this case, the agency, IFMS or ISSA offeror receives a gain--and a considerable competitive advantage over the contract bid--estimated at the fair market value of the existing fleet. An amount equal to the fair market value of the existing fleet is added to the agency, IFMS or ISSA offeror bid at Line 19 for cost comparison purposes.

6. Federal income tax (Line 13 and Line 20).

1. Agencies should recognize the current contract support identified in Line 6, above. Calculate the total Federal Income Tax, based upon the contractor's offer (Line 9) and Appendix 5, Tax Rate Table. Subtract from the contractor's estimated tax liability the Federal taxes paid within the in- house cost estimate (estimated from the appropriate share of Line 6 and as described in the Management Plan) and enter the remainder.
   
   
2. The same treatment may be afforded to the GSA/IFMS or ISSA offer, if the offeror certifies the value of its contract support contained within its overall cost estimate. This estimate must be available to the requesting agency's Independent Review Officer for review and concurrence.

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).

1. It is not the intent of this Supplement to require the IFMS or other potential ISSA offerors to alter their methods of operation to provide unique or site specific services. While such services may meet agency missions and may legitimately be included in the solicitation, additional adjustments to the IFMS/ISSA cost estimate may be necessary to reflect differences in the bids. Examples of such services include: dispatching, vehicle transition, maintenance work warranties, certain disposal services/costs, accessory installations and removals, tire replacements, etc.
   
   
2. Agencies should identify the differences between the requirements of the solicitation (contractor bid) and the IFMS/ISSA cost estimate. The agency determines if any item or combination of items will impact the agency's ability to perform. If the agency's ability to perform would be adversely impacted, the IFMS/ISSA cost estimates may be rejected as non-responsive. If the differences will have minimal agency performance implications, and/or can continue to be performed by agency personnel, the IFMS/ISSA cost estimates will be adjusted for purposes of comparison with the contractor and MEO offers, based upon the comparable costs contained in the agency's MEO.
   
   
3. A complete record of all adjustments to the contractor's, IFMS and ISSA's cost estimates should be maintained and made available to the public upon request.

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: _____