In the decades since the enactment of the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), contractors, agencies, and the tribunals that decide government contract disputes have grappled with the question of what constitutes a claim.
Generally, when a contracting officer (CO) determines that a
contractor owes the Government money and issues a decision saying
as much, the contractor challenges the decision by filing an appeal
with a board of contract appeals or an action in the Court of
The Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) is supposed to be a way for agencies to streamline procurement. However, achieving the desired efficiency requires that the Government buyer use the right contract vehicle for a given requirement.
This is the first post in a series focused on protest allegations related to cost and price analyses. Planned future posts will discuss limits on the adjustments an agency can make, benchmarks an agency may use in a realism analysis, the role of an offeror’s technical approach in a price/cost realism analysis, price reasonableness, and recent protest decisions involving cost/price analysis issues.
As this series has shown, disappointed offerors often raise protest allegations related to discussions. Although protesters frequently allege that discussions were unequal, misleading, or not meaningful, challenges based on these allegations can be difficult to win.
In a recent decision from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA), the Board held that an agency justifiably withheld payment after four of the contractor’s officers and employees were indicted ..
This is the fourth post in a series of posts focused on protest allegations related to discussions with offerors. The first post addressed differences between clarifications and discussions. The second post focused on the requirements for discussions to be meaningful. The third post dealt with misleading discussions. The final post in the series will provide a round-up of recent protests involving discussions.