Jump to content

Request For Quote


GABE

Recommended Posts

There was an offer by the government and an acceptance by contractor A. Contractor A didn’t perform in accordance with the contract (a purchase order).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

Gabe, the order is an offer. It may be the award document but only if the firm accepts the offer. 

 

Edit: I don’t think we can answer your initial question. There could be a mutual error if there was “an oversight by the KO “ and a misunderstanding by company A of what it agreed to supply..

But that hasn’t been established by the facts.

The fact that Firm A supplied what it quoted its price for may be an indication that it thought the government agreed with its quote…

Best response thus far! Mutual error. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that there was a mutual mistake. Careless reading is not a mistake. About mutual mistake:

https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/mistake-and-ability-avoid-agreement#:~:text=The Basic Law%3A,Hence the contract is voidable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn1gKQzypcA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqUusAfC7oc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Mp0_iaWxAs

Mutual mistake is a very complex idea. Do some reading. Search Google Scholar. There are a lot of articles about it, which is a sign of its complexity. Unfortunately, most are not in the public domain and you have to pay for them.

If there was a mutual mistake, the a court or board would declare the contract void.

The best thing would be for the parties to agree to go their separate ways without litigation. Both parties behaved carelessly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

I’m not sure either.

I don’t think contractor A is going prevail in making the government pay for what it supplied, if that is its position.

We do know that there was an offer by the government to provide what was originally asked for the earlier quoted price. If intentional, that could be  a seemingly plausible negotiation strategy.

We also know that firm A signed the purchase order. We know that firm A  delivered what it originally quoted.

We don’t know whether firm A could have provided the specified product.

If it couldn’t provide the specified product, we don’t  know whether the government knew or should have known that before offering to purchase the specified product.

Vern’s references are good for either or both parties to consider.

 

Edited by joel hoffman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

We "know" that? I'd need more than we've been given to "know" that.

OK, I’ll modify that to say that Gabe has edited his earlier posts to indicate that the government sent a purchase order (offer)  for the original product specification at the quoted price (unless he edits his posts again).

Ill agree that we don’t “know” that without seeing all the written actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:

We don’t know whether firm A could have provided the specified product.

We also don’t know, if firm A could have acquired the product somewhere and provide it for the quoted price to fulfill the purchase order.

Edited by joel hoffman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with threads like this is that in order to respond responsibly to the OP's inquiry we would need a complete history of the transaction and copies of all documents. We won't get any of that, so we cannot provide a professional response, other than to suggest this or that possibility.

The transaction was of a kind that many of us learned to do at the outset of our careers𑁋request quotes and issue a purchase order. It takes effort to screw that up. Even a beginner can do it with proper supervision.

Assuming reasonable care and attention to detail, how do you issue an RFQ specifying one thing, receive a quote for a different thing, sign documents, and end up in disagreement about what was bought and sold?

I wonder whether the parties ever spoke with one another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

I wonder whether the parties ever spoke with one another

So do I . My guess is that company A submitted a quote for an alternate with “no returns” condition.. Government simply issued a purchase order to Company A for the quoted price. Company A may have assumed it was an order for what they quoted, then provided it. 

Likely no oral or other written communications during the transaction. Just a guess. gabe never mentioned the government rejecting the quoted alternate or advising company A of such rejection before issuing the purchase order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/6/2023 at 8:35 PM, GABE said:

Solicitation was a RFQ. Government received a quote, not offer.

Since it was an RFQ I assumed we all knew it was a quote (information) and not a proposal (offer).  I should've been more clear in my response.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/7/2023 at 2:56 PM, joel hoffman said:

So do I . My guess is that company A submitted a quote for an alternate with “no returns” condition.. Government simply issued a purchase order to Company A for the quoted price. Company A may have assumed it was an order for what they quoted, then provided it. 

Likely no oral or other written communications during the transaction. Just a guess. gabe never mentioned the government rejecting the quoted alternate or advising company A of such rejection before issuing the purchase order.

Yeah, it sounds like both sides were operating on autopilot, which isn't great.  At risk of over simplifying -- the buyer issued a solicitation for one item, the seller provided a quote for an alternative item, the buyer mistakenly issued an offer for the solicited item, and the seller mistakenly accepted the offer for the solicited item.  I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so maybe there are details in between that can put more fault on one party, but it sounds like both made mistakes, with the seller's mistake being more severe (in my opinion).  Whether they realized it or not, if they accepted the offer from buyer, the seller entered into a binding contract for whatever was in the contract that they signed or delivered against.

I think each side should admit to their mistake and move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/7/2023 at 7:11 AM, Vern Edwards said:

I'm not sure that there was a mutual mistake. Careless reading is not a mistake. About mutual mistake:

https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/mistake-and-ability-avoid-agreement#:~:text=The Basic Law%3A,Hence the contract is voidable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn1gKQzypcA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqUusAfC7oc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Mp0_iaWxAs

Mutual mistake is a very complex idea. Do some reading. Search Google Scholar. There are a lot of articles about it, which is a sign of its complexity. Unfortunately, most are not in the public domain and you have to pay for them.

If there was a mutual mistake, the a court or board would declare the contract void.

The best thing would be for the parties to agree to go their separate ways without litigation. Both parties behaved carelessly.

Great distinction and good reads/views.  I think it's possible each party made a mistake in OP's case, but it's not a "mutual mistake".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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