joel hoffman Posted June 8, 2015 Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 Don, which facts? The order was for seven, only four were provided. We don't actually know if they were usable without modification of a rivet. We don't know whether the four were useable without the other three. That's not necessarily substantial performance of the order, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lbrob1 Posted June 8, 2015 Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 You have all made very good points. The rest of the story is: 1. The contract states delivery of a partial quantity is acceptable. 2. The item functioned properly with the defective rivet. The Government QAR improperly rejected the rivet on a technicality, stating it was Government surplus, when, in fact, it was commercial excess production, sometimes referred to as surplus, but not meeting the FAR definition of surplus. The contractor screamed about the error to the deaf ears of the technical folks. 3. The Government went on to make a new award at double the price and a year and a half for delivery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel hoffman Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 Now that there is that horse of a different color that folks might have heard of... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts