June 17, 2005
Hi Terri,
I'm going to start reviewing Arc's pricing mechanism for the past year in preparation for the upcoming negotiations and/or price change. If there is any additional information that you would like for me to review prior to, please let me know.
Thanks, Cita
August 16, 2005
Cita,Where are we on the export oil price change? We are past where we need tobe (July 1st) and please remember that this still needs to forwarded to thecommittee for their consideration, which takes thirty days before we can usethat price. Every day that is delayed, prevents us from submitting newprices with the new base.Lori/Terri
August 17, 2005
Lori, I completely understand regarding the price and I've been working on it. What I've been trying to do is understand the increase in price from $192.00/MT to $232.87/MT. So, I've been doing some research which has taken time. What I've discovered so far is the following:1. The increase in packaging costs is $40.87 for 4 liters and $53.49 for 20 liters. I cannot find a justification for this increase based on the invoices that you've sent in from the tin and box manufacturers nor based upon the supporting documentation that has been submitted with every invitation. Based on this information, I've calculated the following total subtotal $225.99/mt - excluding lids: Tins & surcharge - $187.65/mtBoxes - $33.93/mtLids - $??Vitamin A - $4.41/mtFrom Inv 094 to Inv 075, Arc's tin price and box price have increased respectively as follows: $0.6256 - $0.6950 and $699 - $754. The increase to both items only equals about $21/mt. I cannot find the additional costs. Please clarify for me with a breakdown of the additional costs.2. I noticed in your last email that there was a $.031 decrease in the cost of closures/lids. Was this on a MT basis or was this per closure? If per closure, what is the price per MT - around $7-$8.00/MT? Please confirm.3. In the past, the price of steel did increase significantly, but industry has indicated that it will not continue to rise. That it will level out and potentially decrease in the latter part of the year. The rise and fall of the tin prices has been within the 3% range. Additionally, the steel surcharge that Central has been charging you appears to be an over charge. Industry indicates that the surcharge is not necessary due to the potential decrease in the steel prices. Also, where surcharges have been included in the industry, the total price was less than the $.6950 indicated in your proposal. The surcharge in your proposal equates to $28.35/mt. It does not appear that other suppliers in the industry are being charged the same surcharge. 4. Industry also indicates a decrease in box prices of up to 6% and expected to decrease more in the future. And some indicate that there has not been a change in price. However, your price has increased approximately $2.50/mt.All of these factors lead me to believe that Arc's proposal could be revised. Maybe I'm missing something or miscalculating. However, I wanted to do a little research before I came back with questions. Maybe you can help me to fill in the blanks.
Thanks,
Cita D. TriceAg. Contract SpecialistUnited States Department of AgricultureFarm Service Agency/KCCO/EOD/PCB
October 5, 2005
Cita,
We are hearing from our freight folks that things are getting much worse due to the fuel increases and lack of available trucks. These brokers have been delivering product at the rate they quoted for the bids, but now it's to a point that something needs to be done. Here are some of the issues the brokers are experiencing: fuel had increased more than $ .50 causing difficulty in booking loads. Some loads get dropped 8-10 times; time they are spending on the phone trying to find trucks has tripled and several carriers have parked their trucks due to the high fuel costs; FEMA has taken a large amount of the trucks, and they are paying top dollar for them as well.
Our concern is that the quality of our product may be compromised if we are unable to continue to use our reliable freight folks. We do not want to see a decrease in the caliber of carriers that are being brokered for these loads. We need some assistance. The brokers can no longer absorb the excess cost over bid prices, and neither can ARC. Can the pricing be amended on these bidded loads? These are the Invitations that are involved: 095, 095A, 105
We appreciate your assistance in this matter.>
Karen K. Norris> ARC Diversified> Job Costing Specialist
October 6, 2005
Hi Karen, I think that we may be able to consider an equitable price adjustment since the freight is a variable part of the pricing. In order to do that, we will need substantial documentation to support your position onthe higher gas prices. Please submit any documentation relating to the contract between you and the trucking company. This should include their pricing structure and also proof of increase in the prices. You will need to submit this documentation for any contract that might require a price adjustment.If you have any questions, please let me know.Cita D. TriceAg. Contract Specialist
United States Department of AgricultureFarm Service Agency/KCCO/EOD/PCB
October 13, 2005
Cita,
I have attached substantial documentation as you requested in order to consider price amendments in the freight bids for Export Oil Invitations 095, 095D, and 105. I have attached a file for each invitation numbertitled "Summary..." that includes the awarded loads, freight company, previous bids, revised bids, and contract/ND# if we had them. I would open the Summary files first. Then the supporting documentation for each freight company is also attached in separate files for you to review. Please let us know if you have any questions. We appreciate you assistance in this matter.
Karen NorrisJob Costing SpecialistARC Diversified
October 16, 2005 8:56 AM
Subject: RE: Freight Issues--Supporting Documentation for Export
Thank you Karen. I will review with the contracting officer.
Cita D. TriceAg. Contract SpecialistUnited States Department of AgricultureFarm Service Agency/KCCO/EOD/PCB
October 18, 2005
Subject: RE: Freight Issues--Supporting Documentation for Export
When:
Wednesday, October 19, 2005 10:30 AM-11:00 AM (GMT-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada).
FYI... 10:30 AM CST 11:30 AM EST
Cita D. TriceAg. Contract SpecialistUnited States Department of AgricultureFarm Service Agency/KCCO/EOD/PCB
From: terri@arcdiversified.com [mailto:terri@arcdiversified.com]Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 8:27 PMTo: Trice, Cita - Kansas City, MOSubject: Re: JWOD Pricing - Conference CallImportance: High
With all due respect, we will not be able to meet via conference call. Please contact Heather Cogdill at Nish if you have questions. Thankyou.
Hi Terri, I understand. I spoke with Heather yesterday evening regarding the letter. She was not happy about it and indicated that there was no reason to have a conference call. Basically, she said that we are at an impasse and that the next step would probably be to submit comments to the Committee and let them make a decision.I really apologize that in addition to the delay in getting this completed, we now cannot come to an agreement.I hope you have a good day and a wonderful couple of days off....
Cita D. TriceAg. Contract SpecialistUnited States Department of AgricultureFrom: Karen Norris [mailto:karenn@arcdiversified.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 4:48 PMTo: Trice, Cita - Kansas City, MO; Randall, Nelson - Kansas City, MOCc: Lori Turner; Terri McRae; Melissa Wilson; Karen Norris
Subject: Base Price Evaluation for Packaging Materials
Cita, please see the attached spreadsheet regarding base price evaluation and the supporting documentation for packaging materials.
Karen NorrisJob Costing SpecialistARC Diversified
----- Original Message ----- From: "Trice, Cita - Kansas City, MO" <cita.trice@kcc.usda.gov>To: "Karen Norris" <karenn@arcdiversified.com>Cc: "Wilder, Leeanna - Kansas City, MO" <leeanna.wilder@kcc.usda.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 9:12 AMSubject: RE: Requests for Amended PricingHi Karen,No, I haven't had an opportunity to review that documentation yet. I will as soon as I can.
Thanks,Cita D. TriceAg. Contract SpecialistUnited States Department of Agriculture
-----Original Message-----From: Karen Norris [mailto:karenn@arcdiversified.com] Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 9:26 AMTo: Trice, Cita - Kansas City, MOCc: Wilder, Leeanna - Kansas City, MO; Terri McRae; Tim Durm; LoriTurner; Melissa Wilson; Karen Norris
Subject: Re: Requests for Amended PricingImportance: High
Cita, I wondered if you have had an opportunity to review the amended pricing requests yet. Since your response on November 9th, the domestic folks have issued Mod #0001 to amend our contract. If we don't hear from you by close of business today, Terri will elevate this issue. We appreciate your help in this matter.
Karen
Hi Karen,I don't understand - what does elevated mean? Do you mean notificationto my supervisor or George? I've copied my supervisor, Timothy Reaman,on this message. Also, I have been looking into the amended pricing. I've spoken with Domestic as well. It appears that only the bakery mix side has amended your contract. The veg oil side is still in review as I am. Apparently,there was some concern as to the reasonableness of the prices. I will try and get some additional information to you this week.Thanks.
Cita D. TriceAg. Contract SpecialistUnited States Department of Agriculture
-----Original Message-----From: Trice, Cita - Kansas City, MO [mailto:cita.trice@kcc.usda.gov] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 6:40 PMTo: Cogdell, Heather/National Products; Beery, Jill/National ProductsCc: Reaman, Timothy - Kansas City, MO; Randall, Nelson - Kansas City, MO; Wilder, Leeanna - Kansas City, MO; Buxton, Robert - Kansas City, MO; Hunter, Bill/National Products
Subject: Correspondence and Follow Up
Hello Jill/Heather,
It's been a week since our last conference call. During that call, it was determined that you would go back to Terri and Arc and present our proposal. We have not received any feedback on Arc's response. Additionally, I sent to you a response to your email of November 22...you should have received this response on December 1. We haven't received any feedback on our response as of today. We are eager to hear back from you. If you have any questions regarding our response dated December 1, please let me know.
Thank-you,
Cita D. TriceAg. Contract SpecialistUnited States Department of Agriculture
From: Beery, Jill/National Products [mailto:jbeery@nish.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 2:17 PMTo: Trice, Cita - Kansas City, MO; Cogdell, Heather/National ProductsCc: Reaman, Timothy - Kansas City, MO; Randall, Nelson - Kansas City, MO; Wilder, Leeanna - Kansas City, MO; Buxton, Robert - Kansas City, MO; Hunter, Bill/National ProductsSubject: RE: Correspondence and Follow Up
Hi Cita,
Heather, Bill and I have been working with ARC diversified on the vegetable oil issue. I hope to have a response to you by end of week.
Jill Beery, NISH Products
Senior Team Manager, Pricing & Costing
-----Original Message-----From: Beery, Jill/National Products Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 2:10 PMTo: 'Trice, Cita - Kansas City, MO'Cc: Goulding, Hal/National Products; Beery, Jill/National Products; Hunter, Bill/National Products; Cogdell, Heather/National Products
Subject: RE: Correspondence and Follow Up
Hi Cita,
Happy Holidays!!!!
My apologies for not contacting you sooner. I have been in training and an off-site conference for the past week. I want to update you on the status of the vegetable oil pricing. We have completed a proposed concurrence letter for your review. I had originally planned to submit to you last week. It has taken a little longer than I thought to review the letter with the necessary people here and at ARC. The letter is in the final review process here at NISH and I hope to be sending you the proposed price oncurrence letter this week. Please feel free to contact me if you need any additional information. Thank you for your patience in this matter.
Jill Beery, NISH Products
Senior Team Manager, Pricing & Costing
----- Original Message -----
From: "Trice, Cita - Kansas City, MO" <cita.trice@kcc.usda.gov>
To: "Terri McRae" <terri@arcdiversified.com>; "Melissa Wilson" <melissa@arcdiversified.com>; "Kim Barnes" <kim@arcdiversified.com>; "Karen Norris" <karenn@arcdiversified.com>; "Cogdell, Heather/National Products" <hcogdell@nish.org>; "Beery, Jill/National Products" <jbeery@nish.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 11:45 AM
Subject: Happy Holiday Wishes
Hello,
I just wanted to wish you all a safe, blessed, and wonderful holiday season. I hope everyone enjoys special time with their families and loved ones celebrating the Joy and Spirit of Christmas - which is love, giving and sharing.
May you all have a wonderful and Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!!!!
Sincerely,
Cita D. TriceAg. Contract SpecialistUnited States Department of AgricultureFarm Service Agency/KCCO/EOD/PCB
From: Beery, Jill/National Products [mailto:jbeery@nish.org] Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 5:32 PMTo: Trice, Cita - Kansas City, MOCc: Harmon, Will/National Products; Goulding, Hal/National Products; Cogdell, Heather/National Products; Hunter, Bill/National Products; terri@arcdiversified.com; Beery, Jill/National Products
Subject: Vegetable Oil Pricing
Hi Cita,
I have attached a proposed concurrence letter for vegetable oil pricing. You will see that ARC diversified has agreed to a packaging cost of $225 as per USDA’s recommendation on our last conference call. Please review this letter, sign and return to me if you are in agreement. Another question that was raised on our previous conference call was if ARC’s packaging was exceeding the USDA requirements. In response to this question, I have attached a copy of a “certification of compliance” from Cumberland Container Corporation stating that ARC’s packaging is in compliance with announcement V010. Please feel free to contact me or Bill Hunter (571-886-4621) with any questions.
Thank you!!!
Jill Beery, NISH Products
Senior Team Manager, Pricing & Costing
December 23, 2005
Hello Jill,
I have reviewed the concurrence letter – briefly – and there are a couple of things that I would like initially respond to. First, we appreciate Arc Diversified agreeing to our proposal and reducing the materials cost for the 4 liter and 20 liter. The costs listed in the concurrence letter appear to be fair. However, when I calculated the 4% NISH fee against the packaging and L/O/B total, I came up with a different value. The concurrence letter reflects $16.53/mt for 4 liter and $17.06/mt for 20 liter. My calculations equal to $15.87/mt for 4 liter and $16.38/mt for 20 liter. Please review your calculations and let me know if there was an error on your behalf or mine.
Second, I am unclear on the 35,000mt volume on which the base price will be calculated. I don’t remember this being included in prior discussions. Please provide a response regarding this quantity.
Third, in my email of December 1, 2005, I stated that we disagreed with the base price being applied retroactively against invitations during the negotiation period. We have found no basis for applying the new base price against contracts between July 2005 and current. We may need to discuss this further before agreeing to the new base price and concurrence letter.
Finally, please provide an explanation for the 3% or greater increase in material costs as a basis for renegotiating appropriate changes. This may be in accordance with OMB Circular 122, however, we need time to review this document.
Again, we appreciate NISH and Arc working with USDA to come to an agreement on the new base price. We would like for you to consider our concerns and provide a response.
We would like to discuss early in the New Year, as most of us will be out of the office for the holidays the week of December 26, 2005. Hope you all have a wonderful holiday!!!!
Cita D. TriceAg. Contract SpecialistUnited States Department of Agriculture>
> Cc: "Cogdell, Heather/National Products"
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 5:03 PM
Subject: Vegetable Oil----- Original Message -----
From: "Beery, Jill/National Products"
To: terri@arcdiversified.com
Hi Terri,
Bill and I had a conversation with Cita today. Although she is not ready to commit to anything yet, she did ask that we provide her the amount that you would be expecting if they agreed to a price retroactive to 7/1/05. She would like the expected amount in two parts 7/1/05 thru 9/30/05 and 10/1/05 thru current. Would you be able to provide us with that information?
Jill Beery
NISH Products
-----Original Message-----
From: Lori Turner [mailto:lori@arcdiversified.com]
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 4:55 PM
To: Terri McRae; Beery, Jill/National Products
Subject: Re: Vegetable Oil
Here is the breakdown on what the reimbursement would be due to the base price change.
-----Original Message-----From: Beery, Jill/National Products [mailto:jbeery@nish.org] Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 4:19 PMTo: Trice, Cita - Kansas City, MOCc: Goulding, Hal/National Products; Cogdell, Heather/National Products; Hunter, Bill/National Products; terri@arcdiversified.com; Beery, Jill/National Products
Subject: FW: Vegetable Oil
Hi Cita,
ARC has provided the attached spreadsheet detailing the amount of reimbursement due for the price difference between 7/1/05 thru 9/30/05 and /1/05 thru current. Please contact me with the status of your discussions regarding the35000mt discussion and the retroactive reimbursement. We need to finalize these discussions and come to resolution very soon.ARC is bidding on some new offerings and we are perpetuating the retroactive repayment.
I am asking that we finalize these discussions no later than Tuesday, January 10th.Please contact me at your earliest convenience. Thank you and have a great weekend!!
Jill Beery
NISH Products
Senior Team Manager, Pricing & Costing
January 6, 2006
Jill/Terri,
Thank you for the spreadsheet. Our figures are the same as yours.
Regarding the last email that you sent to us, I have the following comments:
1. We are in agreement with the NISH fee based on .96 of the total packaging and labor/overhead/burden. We found on the JWOD website that the fee should be calculated by dividing those costs by .96 instead of multiplying by 4%.
2. We cannot concur with Arc's pricing being based on a 35,000MT quantity for several reasons:
a. The first is that we have no indication of how much quantity we will buy in the upcoming year. Quantities may be greater or less than the previous year. Therefore, our only assurance to Arc is that they will receive 20% of whatever tonnage/quantity is purchased.
b. The second is that we cannot guarantee that funds will be available at the end of the fiscal year. Our programs are paid for with appropriated funds. Those funds are normally depleted by the end of the fiscal year. Arc’s proposal of a retroactive reimbursement if their total quantity falls below 35,000MT could not be implemented until the end or near the end of the fiscal year in September ‘06. The probability of available appropriated funds for a reimbursement would be slim to none. Along the same lines, our programs consist of funding from two sources – FAS and USAID. At the end of the fiscal year, one may have funds available and the other may not. Would Arc be agreeable to receiving only a partial reimbursement if that became a real scenario?
c. Finally, that reimbursement would have to be spread out over the entire fiscal year which would cover two pricing periods (due to the fact that the new pricing period would begin in July).
3. A decision has not been made regarding Arc’s request for a retroactive reimbursement from July ‘05 to present. We are still in review of this proposal. However, if we were to concur with this request, the issue of availability of appropriated funds from FY’05 (as mentioned above) will probably be applicable. We agree that the retroactive reimbursement value would be $409,032 for July – Sept 2005 and $699,581 as a total from July to present. If we were to concur with this request, we would need to confirm with FAS and USAID that the funds are available for the July – Sept amount.
4. We agree with Arc’s proposal of renegotiating the price if the material costs increase 3% or more prior to July 2006. Arc would need to supply appropriate and detailed documentation to support any increases.
Upon your receipt of this email, there should only be one outstanding issue to resolve – the retroactive reimbursement from July to the present. We hope to have a decision and input from FAS/USAID by early next week. At that time, we will contact you with our position on item #3.
Thank you and have a good weekend.
Cita D. Trice, Ag. Contract Specialist
United States Department of Agriculture
From: Beery, Jill/National Products [mailto:jbeery@nish.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 6:48 AMTo: Trice, Cita - Kansas City, MOCc: Goulding, Hal/National Products; Cogdell, Heather/National Products; Hunter, Bill/National Products; terri@arcdiversified.com; Randall, Nelson - Kansas City, MO; Reaman, Timothy - Kansas City, MO; Buxton, Robert - Kansas City, MO; Wilder, Leeanna - Kansas City, MO; Harmon, Will/National Products; Beery, Jill/National Products
Subject: RE: Vegetable Oil
Hi Cita,
Thank you for your response below (above). Although we understand the USDA position regarding the 35,000mt minimum quantity and the difficulties in reimbursing ARC retroactively if quantities fall below that level, the ARC packaging price of $225/4 liter and $244.08/20 liter are calculated using a minimum 35,000mt quantity. If USDA is unable to guarantee this minimum quantity, ARC would like to base bids each month on actual packaging cost using the $225 and the $244.08 as a base price. This pricing is consistent with the methodology established by the Committee and was in use prior to the last price change in 2004. The use of this pricing methodology will eliminate the need to establish minimum quantities for pricing and will eliminate the need for retroactive claims.
For example:
Month 1 – packaging costs remain the same as the base price – ARC would bid $413.18/4 liter and $426.48/20 liter as per our agreement.
Month 2 – packaging costs drop by $2 – ARC would bid $411.18/4 liter and $424.48/20 liter.
Month 3 – packaging costs increase by $3 – ARC would bid $416.18/4 liter and $429.48/20 liter.
ARC would submit actual packaging quotations as proof of the price. Actual prices will be supported through annual independent audits of the information.
As stated above, this method of pricing has been used in the past and protects ARC in the event that the quantity purchased is significantly less than anticipated. The base price would continue to be adjusted to actual for July 1st, using information provided in June of each year.
If you agree to this pricing methodology, I can update the concurrence letter to reflect this method. Therefore, there are two remaining issues. The 35,000mt minimum quantity issue and the retroactive payment.
Please let me know if you are agreeable to the above pricing strategy.
Thank You.
Jill Beery,NISH Products
Senior Team Manager, Pricing & Costing
-----Original Message-----From: Trice, Cita - Kansas City, MO [mailto:cita.trice@kcc.usda.gov] Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 2:47 PMTo: Beery, Jill/National ProductsCc: Goulding, Hal/National Products; Cogdell, Heather/National Products; Hunter, Bill/National Products; terri@arcdiversified.com; Randall, Nelson - Kansas City, MO; Reaman, Timothy - Kansas City, MO; Buxton, Robert - Kansas City, MO; Wilder, Leeanna - Kansas City, MO; Harmon, Will/National Products
Subject: RE: Vegetable Oil
Hi Jill,
Just a follow up to let you know that we are still in review and should have a response to you soon.
Thanks,
Cita D. TriceAg. Contract SpecialistUnited States Department of Agriculture
From: Beery, Jill/National Products [mailto:jbeery@nish.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 11:18 AMTo: Trice, Cita - Kansas City, MOCc: Terri@arcdiversified.com; Goulding, Hal/National ProductsSubject: RE: Vegetable Oil
Hi Cita,
As per our conversation this morning, I would like to receive a copy of your historical pricing analysis for both 4L and 20L once you have completed your research. We would like to see the price comparisons of ARC diversified vs other commercial pricing.
Thank You!!!
Jill Beery
NISH Products
Senior Team Manager, Pricing & Costing
Jill,
That information would be based on award information only and not bids/prices submitted. I can provide FY04, FY05 and current. But, that would take some time. I’m working on three other JWOD pricing related issues right now.
Cita D. TriceAg. Contract SpecialistUnited States Department of AgricultureFarm Service Agency/KCCO/EOD/PCB
Jill,
Actually, that information is available (for a cost) through a FOIA request. Therefore, you would need to submit a request to Jane Coleman to receive LP reports from past invitations. You can email Jane Coleman at jane.coleman@kcc.usda.gov or you can call her for more information at (816) 926-2607.
The reports that are available through FOIA are:
MXK601 (Ocean Rates used in the LP evaluation),
MXK603 (All bids received - not just veg oil. We do not break these down by commodity),
MXK606 (Register of Bids Received), and
MXK608 (Item List - by commodity, price, and load port/point bid).
If you would like to subscribe to these reports on an annual basis, Jane can also assist you with that.
Hope this is helpful.
Cita D. TriceAg. Contract SpecialistUnited States Department of Agriculture
----- Original Message ----- From: "Terri McRae" <terri@arcdiversified.com>To: <pbriscoe@jwod.gov>; <skennerly@jwod.gov>Cc: "Harmon, Will/National" <WHarmon@nish.org>; <hgoulding@nish.org>;jbeery@nish.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 2:24 PMSubject: Notice of Impasse ARC-diversified vs USDAKCCO Vegoil Base price change
Enclosed please find notice of impasse regarding failure to agree on termsof base price change for vegoil, export programs. We have reviewedOperations Memorandum 19, consulted with Nish, and are forwardingthis notice for your attention. We understand that we have 15 days toprovide you with the business case for this impasse and appreciate the opportunity to solicit your input into this process. I look forward to hearingfrom you. Thankyou.
Terri Lewis McRaeCEO/Exec DirectorThe Advocacy and Resources Corp
Attached is ARC Diversified's letter to the Committee declaring Impassefor vegetable oil pricing. Please contact me with any questions.Jill BeeryNISH ProductsSenior Team Manager, Pricing & Costing
Attachment:
Committee for Purchase from Persons who are
Blind or Severely Disabled
Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800
1421 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, VA 22202-3259
RE: Notice of Impasse between the Advocacy & Resources Corporation
And the Kansas City Commodity Office
Vegetable Oil, for use in export oil programs
JPID Nos 99612, 00641
Nish project number 042095, 042186
Base Price Change Procedures per Committee Notice dated 8/13/99
To Whom it May Concern:
This agency has been negotiating an annual price change for the above referenced product with the USDA Kansas City Commodity Office since June of 2005. This price change was due to be effective on July 1, 2005. The process to be used is the process that has been used for previous price changes (Committee notices dated 4/16/99, 8/13/99, 6/22/02, 9/7/04) and is the process designed and implemented by the Committee for Purchase at the time the item was added to the Procurement List. The method of future base price change for this addition that has been proscribed by the Committee as approved by the Committee, is ‘cost based price change procedures.’
It has become apparent to ARC Diversified, that clarification of the Base Price Change process is needed in order to negotiate vegetable oil pricing per the Committee’s process. The lack of clarity in the current written agreement has prevented the implementation of the annual base price change due for July 1, 2005. At this time, after months of discussion (June 2005 —current) and informal intervention by the central nonprofit agency NISH, we are unable to achieve the necessary agreements to negotiate a base price change without intervention by the Committee for clarification of the processes and responsibilities.
We have continued to conduct our work during this period of discussion and will continue to work through the impasse process. We have fully and completely documented the need for this price change and the impact upon our agency for the failure to implement and conduct this price change timely. We are prepared to submit and present the business case within 15 days of this correspondence. Please advise to whom this information should be submitted and the framework you would like to receive.
Respectfully Submitted,
Terri Lewis McRae
Terri Lewis McRae
CEO/Executive Director
The Advocacy & Resources Corp
d.b.a. ARC-Diversified
cc: Will Harmon
Products Office, Nish
No comments:
Post a Comment