Don Mansfield

Me, too. I was thinking through some of the implications of this decision, which I think the COFC got right. A proposal revision would only include changes to the part of a solicitation response that was binding (i.e., the proposal). If that's true, then changes made to the part of a solicitation response that was not binding (i.e., information) could be made without discussions. I don't recall the GAO ever making this distinction in clarifications v. discussions cases. Do you?

Do you think the FAR is inconsistent with use of "proposal" and definition of "proposal"?

What rule or contract clause prohibits it?

Then the CO may have created an unauthorized commitment.

Not that I know of.

No comprendo. Why would you remove an optional line item (instead of just not exercising the option)?

You need to ask the contracting officer. Nobody here can answer your question without reading the solicitation.

If you are a beginner, let me suggest a learning exercise. Don't ask to see other people's checklists. Make your own checklist based on the contents of FAR 4.803(a). Then, check to see if there's anything in your agency's FAR supplement that adds to the list at FAR 4.803(a). Then, look it over and ask yourself if you forgot anything. Share it with some colleagues to see if they can think of anything you forgot. Post it on Wifcon and ask for feedback. Once you've done that, then look at other checklists and compare them to yours. Maybe you forgot something. Maybe they forgot something that you remembered. In the end, you will have learned more than if you just looked at others' checklists. Why reinvent the wheel? Because if you're a beginner you don't know enough about wheels to be taking shortcuts.

Why is this a contracting office problem and not a payment office problem?

My guess is a thoughtless copy and paste.

There's a relic of referring to contract changes as "amendments" at FAR 50.103-2(a): "Amendments without consideration".

Wouldn't you just apply the dollar threshold to the brand name portion?

Vern, I don't think you are saying that all applicable provisions should be included in a task order solicitation, but how does one know that this provision should go in task order solicitations and not other provisions that are prescribed for use "in solicitations" (based on the language of the FAR)?

The decision says that the provision at FAR 52.222-46 is applicable to the contract. However, by definition, a provision is "a term or condition used only in solicitations and applying only before contract award." Is the GAO saying that provisions included in the original IDIQ solicitation apply to task order solicitations by operation of FAR 52.216-18? If so, should task order solicitations include reps and certs?

Good question. I never thought of that.