Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Don Mansfield

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Don Mansfield

  1. Carl,

    formerfed took the words out of my mouth. Unlike a purchase order, a task or delivery order under a Federal Supply Schedule is not an offer by the Government that the contractor can decline.

    I honestly don't know the legal effect of a FSS contractor's response to an agency's task or delivery order solicitation. What happens if a FSS contractor responds with a price that is less than the schedule price, then changes his/her mind? We know that they are contractually bound by the schedule price, but are they bound by the price with which they responded to the task or delivery order solicitation? If the answer is yes, then I would say that the response was an offer. If not, then it was a quote.

  2. Stanretired,

    I think that you can extend the delivery date without obtaining consideration, too. Here's something I wrote in another thread:

    Lastly, a contracting officer is not necessarily required to obtain new consideration if he/she establishes a new delivery schedule. See Administration of Government Contracts, Fourth Edition, p. 965, quoting Free-Flow Packaging Corp., GSBCA 3992, 75-1 BCA P 11,332:

    "It is a well-established principle in Government contract law that while the Default clause gives the Government the absolute right to terminate the contract upon failure of the contractor to make timely delivery of the procurement item, the clause permits the Contracting Officer to exercise his right to use discretion in deciding whether to immediately terminate the contract, or any part thereof, or, among other things, to allow the contractor to continue performance under a new delivery schedule. No new consideration is necessary to support what the Default clause already permits the Contracting Officer to do."

    [italics added].

  3. Reading through the thread there are some inconsistencies with the method of procurement. First is the idea that an IDIQ Task Order is intended. Gort has already posed why such a route is problematic. Second is the idea that the DoD is using an RFP to solicit. It should be an RFQ. Finally is the fact that it will be T&M as a firm-fixed price quotation shall be requested, unless the ordering activity has made a determination that it is not possible at the time of placing the order to estimate accurately the extent or duration of the work, or to anticipate cost with any reasonable degree of confidence. When such a determination is made, a time-and-materials (including labor-hour) quotation may be requested. A time-and-materials order must include a ceiling price. Contractors exceeding the ceiling price do so at their own risk." (Quoted from GSA's Q&A about schedules found on their website http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentVi...&faq=yes#1- )

    I would suggest contacting the specific GSA contract specialist for the schedule and have your discussion with him/her about what DoD is doing to insure it is not only in keeping with FAR Part 8 but the specific schedule contract itself. Remember the schedule contract is the guiding light as to what can and can not be done.


    Why do you think that DoD is wrong in using an RFP? DFARS 208.405-70© discusses the receipt of offers, not quotations.

  4. * Whether changes are within scope within those percentage parameters may turn out to be true in some cases, so I submit that phrasing of the conditional makes it a go-no go proposition based strictly on the percentages quoted.

    * When is price analysis not required? Are we talking of broad agency announcements for basic research or other cases when only costs and fees are involved rather than price, such as A-E services?

    In these instances, I would say there are gray areas.

    "I wonder if I can find someone on craigslist to give me a cool tat so I can blend?"


    Of course, you could create fact-specific scenarios to make those statements true. However, many people believe some or most of these statements to be true as general propositions. They don't see the "shades of gray."

    As you learn more about earthlings, you will understand.

  5. Wifconners,

    I'm looking for examples of common myths/misunderstandings in Federal contracting. I'm particularly interested in beliefs that Federal contracting folks seem to cling to, even though they have no basis in law or regulation. Or, the rules have long changed, but some folks seem to have not received the message. For example, here are some I've observed:

    1. Changes within 10-15% of the contract price are within scope.

    2. In an IDIQ contract with options, each option year must have its own minimum.

    3. Offerors with no record of past performance must be rated neutral.

    4. Price analysis is always required.

    5. You can't tell an offeror that his price is too high or too low during discussions.

    6. An unsuccessful offeror's name cannot be disclosed during a debriefing.

    7. Contingencies are unallowable costs.

    I get most of these from my students, who pick them up at their offices. Some myths/misunderstandings transcend agency lines.

    Think of things that are said by PWACs who think they know something about contracting.

    Thank you and have fun.

  • Create New...