December 30, 201410 yr comment_25036 I agree that neither type of BPA is a contract. They are agreements as their name implies. They set some basic terms and conditions for placing Calls against them. I do wonder about FAR Part 8 BPAS that have been competed with winning suppliers receiving calls that may amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. That would seem more of a commitment than just being an agreement but as BorderC stated, there is no consideration beyond the award itself to bind them and it is my understanding that either party could walk away at any time.
December 30, 201410 yr comment_25038 Hmmm. If a GSA multiple award schedule contract is a contract, how can a BPA established under that contract be anything less of a contractual commitment? Once established, if an agency places an order under the BPA is the BPA holder not under an obligation to perform in accordance with the terms of the MAS contract and the BPA? If not, there would appear to be some serious problems with the GSA program and its legality under CICA.
December 30, 201410 yr comment_25041 Consider this and the citations at the end of the blog.... https://interact.gsa.gov/wiki/schedule-bpa-contract Remembering that sometimes BPA's are the setting up a charge account (FAR 13.303-1(a)) with a vendor that would be used at some future point to "order" a need it would stand to reason that a GSA-FSS BPA is simply the establishment of the charge account with the GSA FSS contractor just in the same way they are considered same with non-GSA FSS contractors when established under FAR Part 13.
December 31, 201410 yr comment_25043 I am not quite buying it. It seems to me that there is a big difference between the two transactions labelled as BPA's. In the case of a BPA under the MAS the transaction is a subset of an established contractual arrangement (the GSA awarded IDIQ). The MAS-unique regulated procesess for "downselecting" BPA "awardees" from the available pool of MAS contractors doesn't relieve those contractors from the underlying obligations of their MAS contract. The only question then is whether the selection and award process for the BPA creates any additional contractual obligations on the parties based on their respective offer/acceptance. Put another way, is additional consideration required and, if so, is there any? Is the consideration here similar to that which the courts and GAO have found adequate to rationalize the enforceability of the underlying MAS contract?
