Retreadfed

Vern and H2H, I worked in the Strategic Systems Project Office (SSP-1), a subordinate organization to NAVSEA, also located at Crystal City at that time.  My familiarity with this incident was derived from periodic staff meetings in which individuals who were directly involved with the shipbuilding claims resolution process participated and reported on the progress of the claims resolution, including what Rule was doing.

As I recall, Rule had a warrant issued by the NAVY.  He did not get a separate warrant from DoD.  As a NAVY contracting officer resolving a dispute concerning a NAVY contract, he was obligated to comply with NAVY contracting requirements, including various required reviews of proposed actions, including review and approval by NAVY general counsel attorneys.  My memory is that as a result of his actions in regard to the CGN-41 claim, his warrant was revoked.  He retired shortly thereafter.

I worked for NAVSEA at that time and am somewhat familiar with this incident.  What Rule did was wrong on many levels because he simply did not have the authority to bind the government in the manner that he attempted to do.  Under NAVY Directives, the modification needed to be approved by the General Counsel before it could be executed. It never received such approval.  Similarly, by law, once a matter goes into litigation, a contracting officer loses the authority to resolve the matter.  Instead, the Department of Justice has the sole authority to do so.  There were other issues with what Rule did regarding the modification.  As I recall, shortly after this incident occurred, Rule retired when he was in his 70's. 

here_2_help,

As I wrote in one of my earlier blog entries, the FAR Councils have stated that CAS determinations are made at the "whole contract" level in the case of indefinite delivery contracts (see ?Commonly Understood? I Think Not). No, I won't argue that it makes sense.

As far as determining CAS applicability for an indefinite delivery contract, I would say that the contract value is the maximum amount of the contract in accordance with FAR 1.108( c ). FAR 1.108 says "The following conventions provide guidance for interpreting the FAR...", so I assume that includes the FAR Appendix.

Don, why would you think that FAR 1.108© applies to the CAS and the CASB rules, when the CASB is given sole responsibility and authority for issuing CAS interpretations?

Also, in regard to what is the value of an IDIQ contract, what impact does this extract from FAR 16.504 have on your conclusion that it is the maximum potential amount that can be ordered under the contract that deterines the value of an IDIQ contract "To ensure that the contract is binding, the minimum quantity must be more than a nominal quantity, but it should not exceed the amount that the Government is fairly certain to order"?

Changing it around a little bit, would it make any difference if we are talking about multiple award contracts instead of single award IDIQ contracts?