The FAR and DFARS prescriptions do not specify any scenario, or example scenarios, where using the Alternate I of either the 252.215-7010 or 52.215-20 provision would be appropriate. The prescription at 215.408(6)(i)(B) and the prescription at 15.408(l)(1) state that a different format than the format in the standard FAR Table 15-2 can be used. Are there any examples of the Alternate I being used previously for any particular scenarios? Or a benefit of using an alternate format? For example, to accommodate a small business? The contractor is a large business that prepares TINA proposals regularly, but since the prescription is relatively vague, I don't have a firm rationale to refute the use of an alternate format.
This response is based on the information provided. We suggest you discuss with your contracting officer and Source Selection Authority as appropriate.
Open full Question Details
In reading the DFARS 252.215-7010 prescriptive language, you would use this provision in lieu of FAR 52.215-20.
The intent of Alternate 1 is to allow an offeror to use an already established company format that must address the requirements of FAR 15.408 and FAR Table 15-2. It would appear that the contractor wants to use its format, which is acceptable as long as it provides the required information. You leave them with the burden of proving to you that the company format meets requirements.