Don Mansfield

whynot, Yes, it's possible (and likely) that adequate price competition could result from FAR 6.102(d)(3), but that is not necessarily so. There's nothing in the regulations that support the assertion that GSA prices resulted from adequate price competition, per se.

whynot, CICA --> "full and open competition" --> FAR Part 6 TINA --> "adequate price competition" --> FAR Part 15 Two different (unrelated) things. You can have "full and open competition" and not have "adequate price competition." You can have "adequate price competition" without any competition at all (i.e., in a sole source acquisition).

While you can assume that GSA has determined its schedule prices to be fair and reasonable, I don't know what basis there is in the regulations to assume that the prices necessarily resulted from adequate price competition.

Carl, formerfed took the words out of my mouth. Unlike a purchase order, a task or delivery order under a Federal Supply Schedule is not an offer by the Government that the contractor can decline. I honestly don't know the legal effect of a FSS contractor's response to an agency's task or delivery order solicitation. What happens if a FSS contractor responds with a price that is less than the schedule price, then changes his/her mind? We know that they are contractually bound by the schedule price, but are they bound by the price with which they responded to the task or delivery order solicitation? If the answer is yes, then I would say that the response was an offer. If not, then it was a quote.

formerfed, Yes, I know. The FAR talks about RFQs and the DFARS talks about solicitation of offers. I don't know what the right answer is.

Vern, I read stanretired's post as implying that a CO could not (as in the CO does not have the authority) extend a delivery date without obtaining new consideration. I was simply pointing out that a CO does have that authority. I agree with you as far as what a CO should do.

Stanretired, I think that you can extend the delivery date without obtaining consideration, too. Here's something I wrote in another thread: Lastly, a contracting officer is not necessarily required to obtain new consideration if he/she establishes a new delivery schedule. See Administration of Government Contracts, Fourth Edition, p. 965, quoting Free-Flow Packaging Corp., GSBCA 3992, 75-1 BCA P 11,332: "It is a well-established principle in Government contract law that while the Default clause gives the Government the absolute right to terminate the contract upon failure of the contractor to make timely delivery of the procurement item, the clause permits the Contracting Officer to exercise his right to use discretion in deciding whether to immediately terminate the contract, or any part thereof, or, among other things, to allow the contractor to continue performance under a new delivery schedule. No new consideration is necessary to support what the Default clause already permits the Contracting Officer to do." [italics added].

How would you justify that your situation was not the result of a lack of advance planning by the requiring activity?

carl, Why do you think that DoD is wrong in using an RFP? DFARS 208.405-70© discusses the receipt of offers, not quotations.

"You can't be distracted by the noise of misinformation." -James Daly In my career as a contracting professional and now an educator, I have come to appreciate the growing body of misinformation in Federal contracting. Contracting misinformation is pervasive. You can see it in the popular press, periodicals dedicated to the contracting profession, in posts at the Wifcon forum, internal policy memoranda at a Government agency, etc. As I'm writing this, somewhere a senior contracting professional is imparting misinformation on a newbie, and the newbie is believing him. A certain amount of misinformation is understandable in Federal contracting, given the volumes of regulations and case law that govern Federal acquisition. I can accept that (it keeps me employed). However, certain contracting misinformation seems to resist any efforts to eradicate it. This class of misinformation has its origins in the operational contracting offices of the Federal Government and is usually created in the form of rules that have no basis in law or regulation, but sound like they do (especially when spoken by senior contracting professionals, legal counsel, or contract policy office personnel). It is this class of misinformation that is most aptly described as contracting "myth-information." As a service to my profession, I will attempt to bust some of the more popular contracting myth-information that I have heard. I've created my own list of myth-information and am collecting more from participants in the Wifcon discussion forum (thank you to those that have contributed). I'll try to debunk at least one myth per blog entry. If you think you have heard some contracting myth-information and would like to share with others, please contact me and I will include it in the blog. Think of the blog as a clearinghouse for busted contracting myth-information.

Gort, Of course, you could create fact-specific scenarios to make those statements true. However, many people believe some or most of these statements to be true as general propositions. They don't see the "shades of gray." As you learn more about earthlings, you will understand.

Yes, I plan to.

Gort, For example? Barada Nikto.

Person without a clue (acronym coined by Vern).

Wifconners, I'm looking for examples of common myths/misunderstandings in Federal contracting. I'm particularly interested in beliefs that Federal contracting folks seem to cling to, even though they have no basis in law or regulation. Or, the rules have long changed, but some folks seem to have not received the message. For example, here are some I've observed: 1. Changes within 10-15% of the contract price are within scope. 2. In an IDIQ contract with options, each option year must have its own minimum. 3. Offerors with no record of past performance must be rated neutral. 4. Price analysis is always required. 5. You can't tell an offeror that his price is too high or too low during discussions. 6. An unsuccessful offeror's name cannot be disclosed during a debriefing. 7. Contingencies are unallowable costs. I get most of these from my students, who pick them up at their offices. Some myths/misunderstandings transcend agency lines. Think of things that are said by PWACs who think they know something about contracting. Thank you and have fun.