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).

a. 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.

b. 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.

c. 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).

a. 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.

b. 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.

c. Agencies may also continue to provide vehicles for contractor, IFMS or ISSA fleet management. No adjustments are necessary.

d. 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).

a. 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.

b. 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).

a. 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.

b. 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.

c. 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)

                                          Base   Option   Option   Option   Option
  A. DEVELOPMENT OF IN-HOUSE COSTS        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: ________

Return to List of Circulars | Circular A-76 | Table of Contents

| OMB Home Page | Budget Information | Legislative Information | Management Reform/GPRA |
| Grants Management | Financial Management | Procurement Policy |
| Information & Regulatory Policy | Special Topics |