Looking for a case where prior to exercising an option, the Contracting Officer failed to conduct an "informal analysis" of the market to determine that the option price was still better than prices available on the open market, where it was later discovered that the option price was no longer the best price and the CO was held accountable for claiming that he had made that determination. Does this sound familiar to anyone?
|
|
|
|
1
Option Price Analysis Not Conducted
Started by Vbus, May 18 2011 04:16 PM
3 replies to this topic
#2
Don Acquisition
-
- Members
-
- 954 posts
Gold Member
- Gender:Male
- Location:San Diego, CA
#4
joel hoffman
-
- Members
-
- 1,335 posts
P.E., DBIA
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Family, Sailing, Motorcycling, Hunting, Volleyball; Acquisition, Source Selections, Contract Administration, Construction, Design-Build Construction, mods, claims, TFD, TFC, project controls,
Posted 19 May 2011 - 07:41 PM
Don Acquisition, on May 18 2011, 04:20 PM, said:
Having worked on several projects in Panama and also a couple with the Panama Canal Commission, I could probably "read between the lines" in the referenced GAO matter. The PCC was run like a very tight and professional Corps of Engineers' District before it was turned over to the Republic of Panama. Hence the legal dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's by the PCC. I have a gut feeling that there was more to the story but that the PCC was able to use the recovery process from the contracting officer as the most practical resolution to what probably was going on.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
