Jump to content

Cardinal Change


Bypassman

Recommended Posts

We currently have a contract that was due to be optioned but have been told that we were only going to be extended due to the numerous changes in the contract which has increased the dollar amount more than double from the first year. This would be the second option excercised. The Contracting Officer has said that they can't excercise due to "Cardinal Change". However they have stated give them something to go to the higher ups to fight with and they would fight for us. All CPARS are excellent.

Can the Agency Treat each option as a new contract? For instance first year Contract Awarded at $1,000,000.00 modified to $1,800,000.00 Option 1 optioned at 1,800,000.00

thus could increase t $3,500,000.00 since it didn't increase 100% in the "New Contract Period"?

I seem to remember protest case that GAO ruled in favor of Government on increases in janitorial and grounds contracts in the past but can't find the cases. Any help appreciated

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A cardinal change not purely defined by the change in price. Such a change is when the prospective change is outside of the scope ultimately presented to the contractors to bid/propose against, and was subsequently incorporated into the contract.

It is possible that the increase in price is not a cardinal change if it was contemplated in that scope of work. That could happen in cases where the work would be conducted in phases, where a small effort would eventually lead to a larger effort as the work progressed.

This information is in accordance with my understanding of the FAR and my study of the Government Contract Changes text by Ralph Nash (3rd Ed.)

In your case, it is possible that the Contracting Officer has determined that the scope used to award the contract has indeed been changed to the point that no contractor could have concluded that it would be changed in such a fashion, thereby becoming a cardinal change by definition. That the price went up so drastically is a symptom of such a change, but it by itself is not neccessarily the cardinal change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q. Can the Agency Treat each option as a new contract? For instance first year Contract Awarded at $1,000,000.00 modified to $1,800,000.00 Option 1 optioned at 1,800,000.00 thus could increase t $3,500,000.00 since it didn't increase 100% in the "New Contract Period"?

A. An agency can exercise an option only in accordance with the option language of the contract. Apparently, the option language in your contract does not provide for what you describe - or you wouldn't be asking the question. So, my take is that the agency is correct - the contract/modifiation for the new year will have to be processed as a new procurement,

Google "cardinal change" for info on the term.

Ed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading the Administration of Government Contracts, 4th edition, pages 385-86, I conclude that, in this case, the application of the ?cardinal change? principle requires the contracting officer to consider whether or not the changes are ?? within the scope of the competition conducted to achieve the original contract.? AT&T Communications, Inc. v. WilTel, Inc, 1F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

GAO elaborated on this in Neil R. Gross & Co. (B-237434, February 23, 1990): ?In weighing the propriety of a modification, we look to whether there is a material difference between the modified contract and the prime contract that was originally competed. Indian and Native American Employment and Training Coalition, 64 Comp.Gen. 460 (1985), 85-1 CPD Para. 432. (In) determining the materiality of a modification, we consider factors such as the extent of any changes in the type of work, performance period and costs between the contract as awarded and as modified. See American Air Filter Co., Inc., 57 Comp.Gen. 285 (1978), 78-1 CPD Para. 136, aff'd on reconsideration, B-188408, June 19, 1978, 78-1 CPD Para. 443. We also consider whether the solicitation for the original contract adequately advised offerors of the potential for the type of changes during the course of the contract that in fact occurred, CAD Language Sys., Inc., B-233709, Apr. 3, 1989, 89-1 CPD Para. 342, or whether the modification is of a nature which potential offerors would reasonably have anticipated under the changes clause. American Air Filter Co., Inc., 57 Comp Gen. 285, supra.?

In the Gross decision, GAO found the change to be beyond the scope of the contract.

The GAO has applied this ?within the scope of the competition? guideline to a protest involving refuse collection at Fort Rucker, Alabama - Atlantic Coast Contracting, Inc., (B-288969.4, June 21, 2002). Atlantic Coast protested a change to a contract with four options totaling $2,819,990. The change shifted responsibility for furnishing trucks and containers from the Army to the contractor, increasing the unit price for the item from $11,399 to $22,467.25 and increasing the total contract price for the remaining 4 years and 6 1/2 months by $603,220.

?In determining whether a modification triggers the competition requirements under CICA, we look to whether there is a material difference between the modified contract and the contract that was originally awarded. Engineering & Prof?l Servs., supra, at 4; see AT&T Communications, Inc. v. Wiltel, Inc., 1 F.3d 1201, 1205 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Evidence of a material difference between the modification and the original contract is found by examining changes in the type of work, costs, and performance period between the contract as awarded and as modified. MCI Telecomms. Corp., B-276659.2, Sept. 29, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 90 at 7-8. We also consider whether the solicitation for the original contract adequately advised offerors of the potential for the type of change found in the modification, and thus whether the modification would have changed the field of competition. Id. ?

In the end, the GAO concluded that the change in the refuse collection contract was not outside the scope of the contract.

?Atlantic also argues that the significantly increased cost to the unit price for this line item of services establishes that the modification exceeded the scope of the contract. However, where, as here, it is clear that the nature and purpose of the contract have not changed, a substantial price increase alone does not establish that the modification is beyond the scope of the contract. While the contractor's unit price for the service did substantially increase, the Army noted that this price was lower than Atlantic's price for performing the same service. Thus, we find that the increased cost is not in this case persuasive evidence that the modification exceeded the contract's scope. See Techno-Sciences, Inc., B-277260.3, May 13, 1998, 98-1 CPD Para. 138 at 8; Defense Sys. Group et al., B-240295 et al., Nov. 6, 1990, U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 1182 at *11-13.

As you see, Atlantic?s higher unit price helped to sway GAO?s decision.

In your case, the dollar value increases of the changes could have led the contracting officer to conclude that the changes were beyond the scope of the competition. Or, the contracting officer may have concluded that he or she could get a better deal since the volume of services has increased so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...