The Contract Disputes Act (CDA) requires contracting officers (COs) to issue a final decision on claims of $100,000 or less within 60 days. For claims greater than $100,000, COs must render a final decision within a reasonable period and notify the contractor within 60 days of the claim, a specific time within which the decision will be issued. If the CO fails to notify the contractor within 60 days of a specified time within which he would issue the decision, the contractor may file an appeal based on a deemed denial of its claim. Adjudicative forums have consistently held that the CDA requires COs to pinpoint a particular date for the issuance of the decision, with a general timeframe found insufficient to meet statutory requirements. Additionally, the time specified by the CO to render his final decision may not be contingent upon the occurrence of a future event. In situations where the CO specifies a time for the issuance of the final decision, but the calculation of the particular date is dependent upon some future event, the contractor is within its rights to file its appeal on a deemed denial basis.

In Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) No. 56097, the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) awarded a contract for the manufacturing and supply of communications data links to enable U.S. Navy ships to exchange intelligence information with military aircraft. During performance, the contractor identified six entitlement issues and submitted a request for equitable adjustment (REA). The contractor later converted the REA into a CDA claim and submitted it for the CO’s final decision on May 8, 2007. Before the expiration of the 60 days following the receipt of the certified claim, the CO sent a letter notifying the contractor that SPAWAR intended to respond to the claim by approximately December 14, 2007. On July 3, 2007, the contractor filed its notice of appeal with the Board based on a deemed denial. In response, the Navy filed a motion to dismiss the contractor’s appeal as premature. In its decision on the motion, the Board noted that the CO’s notification had failed to comply with CDA requirements because it did not establish a fixed date by which the CO would issue his final decision. Specifically, the CO informed the contractor of SPAWAR’s intent to respond by approximately December 14, 2007. The Board found such an “intent” to respond by an “approximate” date insufficient under the CDA. Consequently, the Board denied the government’s motion to dismiss, directed the CO to issue a final decision by December 14, 2007, and exercised its discretion to stay proceedings until the CO issued his final decision.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2015 requires procuring agencies to verify that all potential awardees of contracts performed in Africa and the Middle East are eligible for base access. Procuring agencies determine a contractor’s base access eligibility by checking the Joint Contingency Contracting System (JCCS) vendor vetting database. The JCCS allows contractors to view available solicitations for local work in these regions and submit proposals in response. In such solicitations, an offeror’s registration in JCCS and its ability to access the relevant bases, as reflected in the JCCS, are considered definitive responsibility criteria. Such criteria are objective RFP standards, which are included to evaluate offerors’ ability to perform the contract successfully. If an offeror fails to meet these specifically included criteria, it is deemed non-responsible and cannot be awarded the contract. Unsuccessful offerors facing such adverse determinations may file a bid protest challenging their exclusion. However, to sustain such protests, the protestors must demonstrate that the base access ineligibility decision underlying the adverse responsibility determination was made in bad faith or due to erroneous decision-making by the government under its procurement authority. Alternatively, the protestor may show a lack of reasonable basis for the determination.

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provides seven exceptions to the Competition in Contracting Act’s (CICA) general requirement for agencies to provide full and open competition. The public interest exception authorizes procuring agencies to forego full and open competition when the head of the agency determines that it is in the public interest to do so and when no other exceptions to full and open competition are applicable. The agency head’s authority to invoke this exception is non-delegable, and procuring agencies must adhere to specific documentation and notification requirements to properly invoke the public interest exception. One such requirement involves the preparation of a written determination and findings (D&F) document by the head of the agency. Following FAR 1.704, this D&F document must provide sufficient facts, circumstances, or reasoning to support the determination and clearly and convincingly justify the agency’s reliance on the public interest exception. Additionally, to use this authority, the FAR requires that the procuring agency notify Congress of the public interest determination no less than 30 days before the contract is awarded.

In addition to providing procedural information in the prescribed agency format, the FAR requires the D&F document to include information regarding the nature and description of the approved action. The D&F must also identify the appropriate statute or regulation on which it is based. Thus, the determination must reasonably rely on the findings and justify the proposed action under the applicable statute or regulation. When reviewing the procuring agency’s D&F document in the context of a bid protest, a protest adjudicative forum, such as the Government Accountability Office (GAO), addresses whether the D&F provides, on its face, a clear and convincing justification that foregoing full and open competition furthers the public interest identified. To withstand scrutiny under a bid protest, the D&F must include facts relevant to the stated public interest and should not rely upon materially inaccurate information. However, once the D&F provides a clear and convincing justification that limiting full and open competition is in the public interest, the GAO will not sustain a protest based on the protester’s disagreements with the conclusions provided in the D&F.

Some projects require the contractor to begin performance immediately, with the urgency of the government requirement providing no time to establish terms, specifications, or prices. The government may enter into undefinitized contract actions (UCAs) or letter contracts for such projects. The contract clause at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.216.25 provides the process for the definitization of UCAs. Since UCAs permit performance without firmly established terms such as pricing, procuring agencies are expected to agree on the undefinitized contract terms in a timely manner after the commencement of performance. When the agency and the contractor cannot agree on a firm price, the FAR definitization clause allows the contracting officer (CO) to conclude negotiations and unilaterally determine a reasonable price. Notably, because the definitization clause expressly permits it, the CO’s unilateral establishment of pricing is considered an act of contract administration and not a government claim. Consequently, if the contractor does not agree with the CO’s unilaterally established price, it must file a claim with the CO before appealing that decision at a relevant Board of Contract Appeals (BCA) or the Court of Federal Claims (COFC).