physiocrat

Folks or Don, in terms of legal analysis, the courts speak at length regarding the fact that BPAs are not contracts and see FAR 2 definition; are you really resting your hat that there is not a case on point for GSA BPAs? If so, your ideas are remarkable and parochial which is certainly your prerogative.

Works well Don, just not my issue; you do your research on case law and you will find the answer without my assistance, not important for me to cite or convince you that a BPA FAR 13 or FAR 8 is not a contract, if you think otherwise, don't care, God bless you and good luck because I have to paint my house and replace my shower diverter valve!

Thank you for the link, shocked that Vern might think that GSA BPAs are contracts, there is plenty of case law to the contrary, not that a court is the final authority on anything but the reasoning is bonified, not like the opinions of 5 out of 9 Supreme Court justices.

OK, hard for me to "just go with it" because it makes no sense and am purist or at least have legal background or common sense. Instead, I'll think about more important things.

Thanks Don, disagree, a BPA is not a contract and there is a plethora of court cases establishing the fact plus common knowledge, agree it should be called something else (GSA) but the main reason it is not a contract is that there is no consideration or mutual conventional inducement or a promise to order anything under a resultant BPA. No real need for me to submit comments but I am shocked at the councils ostensible ignorance of basic contract principles and law.

Thanks for replying, at the end of the day, probably more important to me how Vern replies rather than the councils. Your thoughts or comments?

Informal fallacy, establishes my argument unknowingly but thanks for your comment.

[...] the CAA and the DAR council have no clue, see http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentD...FRDOC_0001-0476. Specifically, the interim rule speaks in terms of exercising options in BPAs!!! These are the leaders and experts in acquisition procedures? Clearly, no need to repeat what is wrong with the idea but briefly: 1) BPAs are not contracts which simply means they are not enforceable in a court of law 2) FAR Option clauses refer to contracts 3) An option is a unilateral right (uncommon in UCC) to extend the period of performance 4) Just dumb, practically, who in their right mind would attempt to include option periods in a BPA? Got it, try to bind a contractor unilaterally to an "option period" under a vehicle that is not binding under an agreement that can be canceled at any time, no consideration and proceed to establish FAR 17 requirements including funds are available, etc? Shall I use 52.217-9? 5) Ridiculous. I'll be submitting comments to this interim proposed rule, make no mistake though I should probably spend more time finding a woman though I do have several prospects but the acquisition is all very annoying.

Yes, I recommend that all contracting personnel ignore the Murray-Benjamin Electric Co. Decision as contrary to the plain language set forth in the regulation and based on your knowledge I would have expected that you would concur with my remarks, otherwise, there is no such thing as required sources and the regulation is ubiquitous. Let us know your opinion on the matter, i.e. what is your definition of shall? I did see Footnote 4 and GSA's concurrence, certainly not relevant as a legal authority or interpretation, as you are aware. Yes, I enjoy reading the physiocrats and the history, libertarian at heart and I really enjoy reading the Federal Farmer among other Anti-Federalist writings.

I believe Mr. Edwards reply was unnecessary, acerbic and arguably in violation of the Wifcon Terms of use, specifically Rule #1 and Rule #10. Error, this comment was in reference to the GSA BPA Competition Requirements discussion. In any event, the holding in the above GAO case states: Agency is not required to order supplies under non-mandatory Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract, and where it is in agency?s best interests--including need to establish ?best value? among potential offerors--agency may compete its requirements among commercial sources of supply instead of under non-mandatory FSS. I recommend that contracting personnel do not follow this advisory GAO opinion because the holding contradicts the clear language set out in FAR 8.002, in the main, ?agencies shall satisfy requirements for supplies and services from or through the sources? in descending order of preference? (emphasis added). Shall means the imperative. There exists no ?agency?s best interests? exception in FAR 8.002. There are two exceptions ? except as required by 8.002 or provided by law. Therefore, the agency is required to satisfy the requirements by conducting market research sequentially in accordance with the applicable priorities list and if the requirement can be met under GSA schedules, the agency is required to order the supplies/services off GSA schedule and may not simply choose to go open market.