The Contract Disputes Act (CDA) requires contracting officers (COs) to issue their final decision on contractor claims in writing and mail or otherwise furnish the decision to the contractor. To be legally valid, the CO’s final decision must adhere to specific content requirements. For instance, 41 U.S.C. § 7103(e) requires the CO’s final decision to state the reasons for the decision and inform the contractor of its appeal rights. The appeals rights notice should include language substantially similar to the notice provided in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 33.211(a)(4)(v). The CO is not required to include specific findings of fact in the final decision, and if included, such facts are not binding in a subsequent appeal. Notably, the FAR further expands upon the content requirements for the final decision. FAR § 33.211(a)(4) requires the final decision to include a description of the claim along with references to the relevant contract terms. The CO must also explain the factual areas of agreement and disagreement, and provide a statement of the decision along with a supporting rationale. However, despite the requirements to provide a supporting rationale, the CO’s final decision need not necessarily be voluminous. On appeal, dispute adjudicative forums rarely find that the final decision is legally defective due to a lack of sufficient rationale.

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires contracting officers (COs) to purchase supplies and services from responsible sources at fair and reasonable prices. In determining price reasonableness, the procuring agency’s primary concern is typically whether the offeror’s quoted prices are too high. Generally, adequate competition between proposals received in response to the solicitation establishes the reasonableness of pricing. However, depending on the procurement, the government may employ various other price analysis techniques to establish price reasonableness. Such techniques may include comparing proposed prices to historical prices paid, competitive published price lists, an independent government cost estimate (IGCE), or prices obtained through market research for the same or similar items or services. Unsuccessful offerors may challenge the procuring agency’s price reasonableness evaluation techniques in a post-award protest. In such protests, the manner and depth of the government’s price reasonableness evaluation is typically within the sound exercise of the agency’s discretion. However, while it is the agency’s prerogative to select an appropriate method for evaluating price reasonableness, the chosen method must provide a reasonable basis for assessing the different proposed pricing under the competing proposals.

The General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) program requires pre-approved schedule contractors to publish an authorized FSS pricelist containing all the supplies and services they offer. The pricelists include the terms and conditions for each Special Item Number (SIN) on the contractors’ schedules. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 8.401 defines a SIN as a group of generically similar (but not identical) supplies or services intended to serve the same general purpose or function. When issuing requests for quotes (RFQs) under FAR subpart 8.4, procuring agencies may include a provision identifying a SIN and expressly limit the procurement to that SIN. In such procurements, only contractors with the identified SIN on their schedule contracts may compete to fulfill the requirement. Additionally, in service procurements, contractors may only propose labor categories (LCATs) that fall under the applicable SIN. However, procuring agencies do not always identify an applicable SIN or limit the contractors’ ability to only propose LCATs from a particular SIN. In the absence of such SIN limitations, contractors may compete for the RFQ if the quoted goods and services are available on their underlying FSS contracts without regard to a particular SIN.

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.