DENIED: December 19, 2012
CBCA 2782, 2832
LACEY NEWDAY CONSULTING, LLC,
                                                                          Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
                                                                               Respondent.
Sidney Lacey, Director and Principal, Lacey Newday Consulting, LLC, Houston, TX,
appearing for Appellant.
William D. Robinson and Oleta Thomas Vassilopoulos, Office of  General Counsel, 
Federal Bureau of Prisons, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges DRUMMOND, STEEL, and WALTERS.
WALTERS, Board Judge.
The appeals are based on claims brought by appellant, Lacey Newday Consulting,
LLC (Lacey Newday), for monies allegedly owed by respondent, the Department of Justice,
Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), under a BOP contract for the furnishing of meat items for
use at the United States Prison, Atwater, California (USP Atwater).  A hearing was conducted
on November 28, 2012, and the record in the appeals encompasses the hearing transcript,
appeal file exhibits 1through 26, plus an additional exhibit offered at the hearing, which the
Board has accepted into evidence as appeal file, exhibit 27.  Exhibit 27 consists of two
documents provided by appellant via facsimile during the course of the hearing at Judge
Walters’ request, i.e., one page of purportedly contemporaneous notes for certain December


CBCA 2782, 2832 2
2011 telephone conversations prepared by Lacey Newday’s independent contractor, Mr.
Brian Gilbert, and a spread sheet also prepared by Mr. Gilbert listing unit prices Lacey
Newday either bid or intended to bid in response to a host of customer requests for proposals
(RFPs) and requests for quotations (RFQs) for various meat items, including the RFQ for
the instant BOP contract.  Also part of the record is a joint comprehensive statement of facts,
which includes a number of stipulations.  As explained below, based on the Board’s review
of the record, the appeals are denied.
Background
On December 6, 2011, BOP issued an RFQ for the supply of several varieties of meat
items for USP Atwater, including, in particular, a request relating to furnishing 2355 lbs. of
80% lean (80/20) ground beef.  Lacey Newday submitted to BOP a quotation on the ground
beef on December 20, 2011, at a unit price of $0.60/lb. Seven other unit price quotations for
80/20 ground beef were received, ranging from $1.66/lb. to $2.40/lb.   On December 21,
2011, Lacey Newday’s principal, Mr. Sidney Lacey, had two telephone conversations with
the BOP contracting officer, Ms. Kathy Cole.  The parties are in agreement that, on
December 21, Ms. Cole inquired as to whether Lacey Newday’s price for the ground beef
was “good,” and that Mr. Lacey on that date confirmed its quoted unit price for the ground
beef.  The parties also agree that Ms. Cole then inquired as to whether Lacey Newday would
be capable of delivering 10,000 lbs. of ground beef instead of the 2355 lbs. called out in the
RFQ, and that Mr. Lacey indicated that he would check to see whether Lacey Newday could
furnish 10,000 lbs.  
Mr. Lacey testified at the hearing that, after completing his second telephone call with
Ms. Cole on December 21, he discovered that Lacey Newday’s quotation of $0.60/lb. had
been mistaken and that its intended unit price quotation for 80/20 ground beef was to have
been $2.05/lb.  The $2.05/lb. is listed for 80/20 ground beef for USP Atwater on Mr.
Gilbert’s spread sheet (appeal file, exhibit 27).  Mr. Gilbert, during his testimony, expressed
his belief that the mistake came about by reason of Lacey Newday using for its quotation for
80/20 ground beef the $0.60/lb. unit price listed on the spread sheet for chicken legs. 
On December 22, 2011, Mr. Lacey and Ms. Cole had two more telephone
conversations.  During the second call, according to both Mr. Lacey and Mr. Gilbert (who
testified that he listened in on that call while the phone was muted), Mr. Lacey notified Ms.
Cole of both the mistake and of the intended quotation.  Ms. Cole disputes this contention,
maintaining that the first she learned of the alleged mistake and of the intended $2.05/lb.
figure was on January 20, 2012, when she received an emailed invoice from Lacey Newday
seeking payment for the ground beef at that higher unit price per pound.  Both Lacey and
Gilbert also refer to four telephone calls between Mr. Lacey and Ms. Cole on December 29,

CBCA 2782, 2832 3
2011, and, more specifically, to the last two of those calls, during which they say Mr. Lacey
again spoke to Ms. Cole of the mistake and intended quotation.  Neither Lacey nor Gilbert
allege that Ms. Cole ever agreed to the $2.05/lb. price for the ground beef.  Rather, in this
regard, Mr. Gilbert testified that Ms. Cole was completely “non-responsive” to Mr. Lacey’s
statements regarding appellant’s intended quotation.  
Ms. Cole acknowledged having spoken with Mr. Lacey on both December 22 and
December 29, but, at the hearing, she repeatedly denied having received any notice about
the intended $2.05/lb. unit price during any of the conversations on either date.  Further, in
light of her having received quotations from other suppliers as low as $1.66/lb. for the
ground beef, she stated, she never would  have had Lacey Newday perform at the $2.05/lb.
price had she been presented with notification of bid mistake as alleged.
The parties are in agreement that, during the conversations on December 22, 2011,
Mr. Lacey confirmed appellant’s ability to furnish 10,000 lbs. of ground beef and that Ms.
Cole attempted to place an order orally for that quantity.  It also appears that, in that
connection, Mr. Lacey advised Ms. Cole that Lacey Newday would not accept that order,
since it was based on payment via a Government purchase card (which would have entailed
a significant fee for Lacey Newday).  Lacey made clear at that time that payment based on
a written purchase order would be needed.  
The December 29, 2011, telephone calls between Ms. Cole and Mr. Lacey involved,
in part, further discussion of the need for a written purchase order.1  In that regard, Ms. Cole
indicated that she would be able to issue a purchase order to Lacey Newday “after the
holidays.” In fact, Ms. Cole did issue a written purchase order to Lacey Newday on January
11, 2012, for, among other items, 10,000 lbs. of 80/20 ground beef at a unit price of
$0.60/lb., for an item total of $6000.  On January 12, 2012, Mr. Lacey sent Ms. Cole an
email message regarding the purchase order inquiring as to whether BOP would accept the
substitution of a higher grade ground beef – 85/15, i.e., 85% lean – in lieu of the specified
80/20.  Nothing is said in Mr. Lacey’s message about the quotation mistake or about any of
the prior instances of alleged telephonic notification as to that mistake and of the intended
1 During the hearing, Mr. Lacey, for the very first time alleged that, during the first
of four telephone conversations on December 29, Ms. Cole threatened that, if Lacey Newday
did not deliver the ground beef per its original quotation, i.e., for $0.60/lb., this purported
“failure to perform” would be posted on some sort of internet communications site
frequented by BOP contracting officers, and Lacey Newday’s reputation as a contractor
would suffer.  Ms. Cole adamantly denied the allegation, disclaiming knowledge of any such
internet site, and the Board does not find the allegation of such a threat credible.

CBCA 2782, 2832 4
unit price of $2.05/lb.  To the contrary, as seen below, the exchange of email messages
between Mr. Lacey and Ms. Cole on that date is entirely consistent with Ms. Cole’s
assertions regarding her previous telephone conversations and of the lack of any such
notification of mistake during those conversations. Indeed, it is clear that Mr. Lacey was
again confirming appellant’s $0.60/lb. quotation for ground beef, and doing so
enthusiastically – with the use of an exclamation point:
[From Sidney Lacey to Kathy Cole 1/12/2012 7:22 AM]
Kathy,
I know you said you guys take menu spec only, but will you take better than
menu spec 85/15 ground beef instead of 80/20?
Thanks,
Sidney E. Lacey
Director/Principal
Lacey Newday Consulting, LLC
* * * *
[From Kathy Cole to Sidney Lacey 1/12/2012 9:29:38 AM]
For the same price of .60/lb?
* * * *
[From Sidney Lacey to Kathy Cole 1/12/2012 10:48 AM]
Same price $.60!
Appeal File, exhibit 5.  
Without any further written or oral notification as to the quotation mistake or as to
the $2.05/lb. price it intended to quote, Lacey Newday, in response to the purchase order,

CBCA 2782, 2832 5
proceeded to ship the 10,000 lbs. of ground beef to USP Atwater on January 13, 2012.2  The
parties are in agreement that delivery of the ground beef was completed on January 17, 2012. 
Appellant, in its complaint, had contended that, prior to delivery, on January 16, 2012, Mr.
Lacey and Ms. Cole had yet a further telephone conversation during which Lacey reiterated
the notification of mistake and of the intended quotation of $2.05/lb.  Nevertheless, both he
and Mr. Gilbert (who had earlier provided the Board with an affidavit attesting to such a
January 16 telephone call – appeal file, exhibit 25) during their testimony at the hearing
corrected this allegation, stating that the notification was, in fact, given to Ms. Cole during
a telephone conversation held on January 20, i.e., after delivery of the meat was completed
and after Ms. Cole had received by email from Mr. Lacey an invoice for the ground beef
showing the higher unit price of $2.05/lb. 
Because the Lacey Newday invoice differed markedly from the December 20, 2011,
quotation (and from her January 11, 2012, purchase order) in terms of the ground beef unit
price, Ms. Cole, by email message to Mr. Lacey on January 24, 2012, requested that the
invoice be revised to reflect the original quotation of $0.60/lb. for that item.  His email
response of the same date is utterly at odds with any notion that he had addressed repeatedly
with Ms. Cole both appellant’s bid mistake and its intended bid for the ground beef:
It’s impossible to sell [o]r buy ground beef at .60 a lb. There must be a mix up. 
Will check on it and get back to you.
Appeal File, exhibit 9.  This January 24 message also cannot be reconciled with the above-
described email message Mr. Lacey had sent to Ms. Cole about the ground beef unit price
just twelve days earlier, when he proposed substituting an even better grade of ground beef
(85/15) for the 80/20 specified:
Same price $.60!
Appeal File, exhibit 5.3  Because Lacey Newday failed to revise the invoice per the
contracting officer’s request, she took an administrative deduction, on February 21, 2012,
2  Actually, as the bill of lading indicates, Lacey Newday shipped a slightly greater
quantity (10,126.70 lbs.) to the prison.
3 During the hearing, Mr. Lacey agreed that the notion in his January 24 message to
Ms. Cole (that he would have to “check” on the possibility of a “mix up” and “get back to
you”) would make no sense were the Board to accept his allegations of prior notification to
Ms. Cole of both the mistake and of appellant’s intended bid.  It would, however, support
Ms. Cole’s repeated denials regarding those allegations of prior notification.

CBCA 2782, 2832 6
against the invoice in the amount of $14,621.81.  This amount represents slightly less than
the difference between the $2.05/lb. and $0.60/lb. unit prices multiplied by the actual
quantity of ground beef delivered.  Appellant  claimed the amount of the deduction and
submitted an appeal to the Board.  That appeal was docketed as CBCA 2782.  Thereafter,
responding to the Board’s concerns about potential jurisdictional problems with that appeal,
Lacey Newday, by letter dated March 26, 2012, submitted a second claim for the $14,621.81,
specifically asking for a contracting officer’s decision under the Contract Disputes Act
(CDA).  The contracting officer issued a final decision denying the claim, by letter dated May
15, 2012.  Thereafter, Lacey Newday timely filed a second appeal, which the Board docketed
as CBCA 2832 and consolidated with the earlier appeal for purposes of adjudication.
Discussion
The instant contract between BOP and Lacey Newday came about as a result of BOP’s
issuance of an RFQ.  Under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), RFQs are treated
differently than either invitations for bids (IFBs) or requests for proposals (RFPs), in that the
submission of a quotation in response to an RFQ is not considered an offer that is subject to
acceptance by means of a Government purchase order or award. In this regard, FAR 13.004
provides:
13.004 Legal effect of quotations. 
(a) A quotation is not an offer and, consequently, cannot be accepted by the
Government to form a binding contract. Therefore, issuance by the
Government of an order in response to a supplier’s quotation does not establish
a contract. The order is an offer by the Government to the supplier to buy
certain supplies or services upon specified terms and conditions. A contract is
established when the supplier accepts the offer. 
(b) When appropriate, the contracting officer may ask the supplier to indicate
acceptance of an order by notification to the Government, preferably in
writing, as defined at 2.101. In other circumstances, the supplier may
indicate acceptance by furnishing the supplies or services ordered or by
proceeding with the work to the point where substantial performance has
occurred. 
(c) * * *
48 CFR 13.004 (2012). 

CBCA 2782, 2832 7
The quotation submitted by Lacey Newday on December 20, 2011, per the FAR,
was not an offer, but merely information furnished to the agency for its possible use. 
The contracting officer attempted to place an oral purchase order on December 22,
2011, based on the information she had obtained.  That oral purchase order may well
have constituted a Government offer, but that offer was rejected by Lacey Newday,
because it was conditioned on payment being made by Government purchase card.  The
parties understood that issuance of a written purchase order would be required in
order to satisfy Lacey Newday’s payment concerns.  
When the contracting officer ultimately transmitted a written purchase order on
January 11, 2012, that was the Government’s offer.  Although, in accordance with the
FAR, the contracting officer might have sought written acceptance of the offer from
Lacey Newday, by its signature of the purchase order or by some separate writing, she
did not do so.  Instead, acceptance in this case was properly effected by delivery of the
ordered meat items on January 17, 2012.  The purchase order clearly called for delivery
of 10,000 lbs. of ground beef at $0.60/lb., and there is no evidence that Lacey Newday
attempted to vary these terms of the purchase order between its issuance on January
11 and its completion of meat delivery on January 17. To the contrary, the email
correspondence on January 12, 2012, can only be viewed as Lacey Newday’s pre-
delivery confirmation of the $0.60/lb. unit price for ground beef.  Notwithstanding
Lacey Newday’s allegation (in both the complaint and in Mr. Gilbert’s affidavit) that
there was a January 16 (pre-delivery) telephonic notification to the contracting officer,
that the $0.60/lb. unit price represented a bid mistake and that Lacey Newday had
intended a unit price of $2.05/lb., that allegation was expressly retracted at the hearing.
Thus, when delivery was made on January 17, 2012, it signified Lacey Newday’s clear
and unequivocal acceptance of the offer to purchase 10,000 lbs. of ground beef at
$0.60/lb.  
The Board need not address which party is the more credible in terms of
appellant’s assertions regarding prior notifications of bid error during the various
telephone conversations on December 22 and 29, 2011.  Those conversations all pre-
dated both the agency’s offer and Lacey Newday’s acceptance and thus would not be
relevant to the parties’ agreement on contract terms. 

CBCA 2782, 2832 8
Decision
For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are DENIED.
_________________________
RICHARD C. WALTERS
Board Judge
We concur:
____________________________ ___________________________
JEROME M. DRUMMOND CANDIDA S. STEEL
Board Judge Board Judge