CONTACTS 
0201 - Corps of Engineers, SFD            415 977 8400 fax 8483
020101 - Mr. Thomas Benero; Chief =415 977 8511; Contracting Division

SUBJECTS
Weekly Progress Meeting
Procedures, Unit Pricing v. Lump Sum
0009   IC-3,4    Hard Material
0009r  IC-3,4    Hard Material
0010   OC 4B-5   Hard Material
0011   OC 4B-1,2 Hard Material
Differing Site Condition, 52.236-2
Changes 52.243-4
Changes and Changed Conditions, 52.243-5
Amend RFP, Consolidate
0020   Combine RFPs 9-11 and 960312 letter

1613 -    ..
1614 - Summary/Objective
1615 -
161501 - Follow up work ref SDS 7 0000. ref SDS 5 0000.
161502 -
161503 - While driving to the progress meeting, Tom asked about my sense of the
161504 - contractor's lump sum pricing to perform "changed" work under a unit
161505 - price contract, ref SDS 5 line 182, discussed yesterday at ref SDS 6
161506 - line 134.  I mentioned our discussion on 960919, ref SDS 2 line 171,
161507 - and discussion with Tom Keesling this morning, indicates the
161508 - Contractor may have erred in proposing a lump sum for work that
161509 - appears better suited to payment based on actual quantities, as in the
161510 - original contract proposal, and it also appears the Contractor's
161511 - pricing may be unjustified, per ref SDS 8 line 82 with respect to
161512 - using a uniform production rate of 60K SF per day.
161513 -
161514 - We considered whether the contractor was possibly misled by the
161515 - language of the RFPs, and the impact on negotiations of having to
161516 - reconstitute pricing where the contractor has responded as requested.
161517 -
161518 - Might COE simply amend the RFPs to direct that proposals follow the
161519 - unit price structure of the contract, so that the government is not in
161520 - the position of having to justify its methodology of converting the
161521 - contractor's figures in order to reach the ultimate question of an
161522 - equitable adjustment.
161523 -
161524 -     [See follow up at ref SDS 9 line 111; ref SDS 10 line 280.]
161525 -
161526 -
1616 -