Do Not Read All FAR Clauses Literally

A literal reading of some FAR clauses can cost you money. One such clause is the Changes clause (FAR 52.243-4) requiring the contractor to give the contracting officer written notice of suspected government changes within 30 days. Although a contracting officer or COTR might want to demand strict compliance with the clause, all government contractors need to know that courts do not require strict compliance. A contractor may be entitled to an equitable adjustment for a contract change even though the contractor notifies a government employee other than the contracting officer of a suspected change long after 30 days have passed and even if the notice is oral. A recent court decision shows how broadly courts construe the Changes clause notice provision.

A construction contractor claimed that it was entitled to an equitable adjustment for design changes that the government imposed in the comments it made to the contractor’s design plans. But the first time the contractor raised the issue was in court pleadings three years after the government had made its design comments and long after the building was built. The contractor should have given the contracting officer notice of its disagreement immediately after receiving the government comments.  

Although the court concluded that this contractor’s notice was too late, its decision discusses precedents that established the defining issue in “notice” disputes. It is not whether 30 days have passed, nor whether the notice was oral, or even whether the contracting officer was the government employee who got notice. The issue is what harm has the government suffered by a contractor’s failure to give 30 days written notice? In this recent case, the harm was that timely notice would have given the parties a chance to resolve the issue years ago, making litigation unnecessary.

But in many situations, the lack of 30 days written notice to the contracting officer may not harm the government. For example, the contractor had complained orally to the COTR immediately after being told to do extra work.

Of course, the best policy is to rigidly follow the rules in the clause. However, a government contractor needs to know that all FAR clauses should not be taken literally. Nor should a government contractor be deterred from filing a request for an equitable adjustment by a contracting officer’s rigid interpretation of a notice provision.

If you believe the government has made costly change to your contract without modifying it to add money, let the Government Contracts Team at Berenzweig Leonard help you make sure you give the government proper notice. A small investment in legal advice can have a large return for you.


Terrence M. O'Connor is the Director of Government Contracts at Berenzweig Leonard LLP. He can be reached at TOConnor@BerenzweigLaw.com. 

Decision 3. Deal with the Contracting Officer and Get the Decision in Writing

Berenzweig Leonard is beginning the New Year with a summary of four important government contract legal decisions handed down in 2013. We began by describing in two blog articles the problems a government contractor can get into as a result of “apparent authority”, a one-sided legal concept that does not apply to the government but that does apply to a government contractor and can be costly if not closely monitored.   Today we deal with the two most fundamental, and most-ignored, rules in government contracting: an enforceable government contract decision can only come from the contracting officer and only if that decision is in writing. 

Decision 3. Deal with the Contracting Officer and Get the Decision in Writing

Every year, decisions show that government contractors break the two most critical rules in government contracting: if an agreement is to be binding on the government, it must be in writing and signed by the contracting officer.

No written document. 

A contractor thought it had reached a settlement agreement with the government on a termination for convenience because the government had agreed to a $485,000 settlement in a telephone conference with the contracting officer who advised the contractor that written confirmation of the amount would be forthcoming. When that written confirmation came, however, it said that the last signature on the currently unsigned agreement would have to be the government’s. When the government failed to go through with the settlement, the contractor tried to force the government to honor the oral settlement but lost. FAR Part 49 explicitly requires termination for convenience settlement proposals to be a written contract modification and the parties had not reached that point in their settlement process. Sigma Construction Co. v. United States, CFC No. 12-865, September 30, 2013.

No contracting officer approval. 

Getting to the contracting officer can be a serious problem. Because a contractor typically works closely with an agency’s technical personnel, the agency’s contract administration personnel, in particular the contracting officer, often is only in the distant background. This can be especially true for Department of Defense agencies that have multiple layers of authority: a contracting officer whose identity may change over the course of a multi-year contract,  a contracting officer’s representative (COR) or technical representative (COTR), plus perhaps some other contractors providing support to a project. However, regardless of how distant the contracting officer may seem to a contractor, it’s essential that the contracting officer be kept in the loop, especially when a contract clause demands it and warns a contractor that lack of contracting officer approval may be fatal.

A contractor recently ended up working for the government for free because the contractor had failed to get the contracting officer’s approval to continue working as required by a contract clause.   Because the contractor’s task order would be funded in two to three month increments, the government wanted to carefully monitor how much money had been spent and how much remained in any increment.  Monitoring would be done via a DFARS clause, 252.232-7007, Limitation on Government Obligation (LOGO) that required the contractor to notify the contracting officer in writing at least 90 days before the date the contract work would reach 85 percent of the total amount then allotted. In addition, the clause prohibited the contractor from spending more than the allotted amount, stating expressly that the government “will not be obligated in any event to reimburse the contractor in excess of the amount allotted to the contract.”

Despite these clear requirements, the contractor did not comply with them. In fact, the contractor kept on working after 100 percent of the increment had been spent, believing what other government personnel were telling it: that the money was in the pipeline. The additional money, however, never came through and eventually the government issued a stop work order due to lack of funding. Although the government paid the contractor 100 percent of the funds allotted to the work, it refused to pay the contractor the additional $288,000 the contractor claimed it had spent based on assurances received from the government personnel other than the contracting officer. A board of contract appeals agreed with the government that the contractor was not entitled to payment so the contractor ended up working for free. Dynamics Research Corp., ASBCA No. 57830, March 26, 2013.

Terry O'Connor is the Director of Government Contracts with Berenzweig Leonard, LLP, a DC regional business law firm. He can be reached at toconnor@BerenzweigLaw.com.

Which Contracting Officer Resolves Disputes Involving Agency Purchases from the GSA Federal Supply Schedule?

A recurring issue faced by vendors on the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) is which the vendor must deal with when it gets into a disagreement with an ordering agency during the performance of a delivery order – the ordering contracting officer or the GSA contracting officer. The Federal Circuit recently addressed this issue in Sharp Electronics Corp. v. McHugh, 707 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

The Federal Circuit interpreted FAR 8.406-6 as creating a bright line rule that “all disputes requiring interpretation of the schedule contract go to the schedule CO, even if those disputes also require interpretation of the order, or involve issues of performance under the order. … Requiring that all schedule contracts must be construed by the GSA CO maintains a clear, predictable allocation of jurisdiction between agency contracting office and GSA.” The Court also stated that “the ordering CO is certainly authorized to construe the language of the order (or its modifications). … We also see no reason why an ordering CO resolving a dispute cannot apply the relevant provisions of the schedule contract, as long as their meaning is undisputed. … The dispute only need go to the GSA CO if it requires interpretation of the schedule contract’s terms and provisions.”

From the Federal Circuit’s decision, we have three important guidelines regarding these “mixed-authority” disputes:

1. The GSA contracting officer resolves all disputes requiring interpretation of the schedule contract according to FAR 8.406-6.

2. The ordering contracting officer could “decide routine disputes about order performance not involving interpretation of the schedule contract, such as whether the contractor’s default was excusable.”

3. The ordering contracting officer can also get involved in issues other than performance claims, such as issues construing the language of the order or its modifications.

The ASBCA recently decided two cases dealing with this issue. In Impact Associates, Inc., ASBCA No. 57617 (Apr. 19, 2013), the ASBCA concluded that because both Impact and the Army “plainly dispute the meaning” of three clauses in the GSA FSS contract, the issue was one for the GSA contracting officer and the CBCA. In Hewlett-Packard Company, ASBCA No. 57940 (July 9, 2013), the Navy had issued a blanket purchase agreement allowing it to buy HP software and the Army issued two delivery orders for HP software under the BPA. A dispute arose regarding the terms of the delivery orders. The ASBCA concluded that because HP’s dispute did not involve any interpretation of the FSS contract, HP properly brought its claim to the ordering agency contracting officer and, subsequently, the ASBCA.

The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the guidelines it set forth in Sharp Electronics are “less than perfect” and openly invited the FAR Council to set different rules by changing the FAR provisions on which the court based its decision. However, until the FAR Council takes such action, these rules can help guide contractors as they navigate disputes arising during the performance of a delivery order under a GSA FSS contract.

Stephanie Wilson is an attorney at Berenzweig Leonard, LLP, a business law firm in the Washington metro area. She can be reached at swilson@berenzweiglaw.com.

Can Contractors Ask the Government for More Price Information?

With budget cuts making price more important in winning government contracts, contractors should know that the government is allowed to provide more helpful information during price discussions than the standard “sharpen your pencil” refrain.  FAR 15.306 (e)(3) lets the government “inform an offeror that its price is considered by the Government to be too high, or too low, and reveal the results of the analysis supporting that conclusion. It is also permissible, at the Government's discretion, to indicate to all offerors the cost or price that the Government's price analysis, market research, and other reviews have identified as reasonable.”

Unfortunately, the government rarely uses this broad authority. Contracting officers can be reluctant to get more specific on price, and prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to price discussions. In the end, they disclose only the bare minimum that they have to disclose.  This safe approach, however, is not always the right one. In one GAO decision, an agency told an offeror simply that its price was “overstated” when its price was 8 times the government estimate. GAO said that the agency had to tell the offeror much more than “overstated.”  Creative Information Technology, Inc.  B- 293073.10, Mar. 16, 2005.

If the government is stingy with price information, it might help to remind the agency that the FAR lets the government be more helpful in discussing price with government contractors.  In one case, the GAO had no problem with an agency telling offerors during the first round of discussions about those line item prices which varied from the government estimates by more than 20%, nor with telling offerors during the second round all of the agency's estimates. Kaneohe General Services, Inc., B- 293097.2, Feb. 2, 2004.

More recently, the GAO concluded that there was nothing wrong with the VA telling each offeror in the competitive range where its price stood in comparison to the average of all current offers in the competitive range. Walsh Investors, LLC, B-407717, B-407717.2, January 28, 2013.  These decisions show that an agency can often give government contractors information more helpful pricing than to just “sharpen your pencil.”  Because there is no harm in asking the government for more information, contractors should ask.

Terry O’Connor is the Director of  Government Contracts with Berenzweig Leonard, LLP, a DC region business law firm. Terry can be reached at toconnor@BerenzweigLaw.com.

Bidders Must Not Delay Protesting Solicitation Amendments

Filing a protest before the agency even awards a contract can be a very difficult business decision because it seems like you are suing your potential customer to get the order. But sometimes that difficult decision must be made and, as we will see, might not be a bad business decision at all.

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) set a firm timeliness rule for pre-award protests: If the agency amends the solicitation and in the process hurts a bidder’s chances of winning the contract, a bidder cannot wait until after losing the contract to protest that amendment. Any protest must be filed right away, before award. Failing to do so waives a bidder’s right to protest the amendment after award.

DoD issued a solicitation that initially made contract award dependent on the evaluation of the bidder’s proposals for a “basic contract” and 2 specific task orders. Only those offerors providing the best value for the basic contract would be considered for award of the task orders. Later, the agency issued Amendment 5 stating that only the basic contract would be awarded, that the task orders would be converted to sample task orders, that the proposals for task orders would be used for evaluating the pricing factor for the basic contract, and that no proposal revisions would be accepted.

After award, an unsuccessful bidder protested, arguing that the amendment was improper because it prohibited changes to proposals.

The appeals court concluded that the bidder should have protested Amendment 5 before award. By not doing so, the bidder had waived its right to protest after award. The court’s explanation was based on keeping the solicitation process fair: “a contractor with knowledge of the solicitation defect could choose to stay silent… If his proposal loses to another bidder, the contractor could then come forward with the defect to restart the bidding process, perhaps with increased knowledge of its competitors.”

As mentioned above, not all pre-award protests are bad business decisions. For example, a protest alerting the Contracting Officer to ambiguities in the solicitation might be welcomed and not counter-productive. Berenzweig Leonard for years has helped its government contract clients decide whether to protest pre-award and, if so, whether to protest to the agency, the Government Accountability Office, or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Although a pre-award protest can be a difficult business decision, it can also be the right one.

Terry O’Connor is the Director of  Government Contracts with Berenzweig Leonard, LLP a DC region business law firm. Terry can be reached at Toconnor@BerenzweigLaw.com.

Does a Previous Equitable Adjustment Guarantee Another Under Similar Circumstances?

Although the government can be flexible and agree to pay an equitable adjustment for extra work on a fixed-price government contract instead of fighting a claim, doing so just once does not create a “course of dealing” that guarantees the government must always do so in the future.

In a recent decision, although the IRS had paid a snow removal contractor an extra $109,000 for removing 3 times the expected snowfall at its Ogden, Utah office during the 2007-2008 winter, a different Contracting Officer refused to pay extra for an equally-heavy snow removal effort by the same contractor the next winter. The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) agreed with the new Contracting Officer’s refusal to pay. Although precedent held that, for example, the government could not refuse to make an exception on the 8th time after agreeing to do so for 7 previous times, a single transaction cannot create a course of dealing.

As the decision shows, contractors cannot assume that the government will continue to pay for extras unless it has done so numerous times before. This is especially true because, over the course of a multi-year contract, the Contracting Officers will very likely change.  Therefore, it is critical that contractors get written confirmation before performing additional work and keep good records to demonstrate that costs for a future equitable adjustment are similar to expenses  previously covered by the government.

Author Terrence O’Connor is the Director of Government Contracts for the Washington, DC regional business law firm of Berenzweig Leonard,LLP.  He can be reached at  toconnor@BerenzweigLaw.com.