Source: http://www.seidmanlaw.com/service-contracting-new-millennium-part/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 18:53:45+00:00

Document:
Service Contracting In The New Millennium - Part I - Seidman & Associates, P.C.
Most agencies acquire services using many of the same statutory and regulatory policies and procedures used for other types of purchases. In addition, the federal acquisition system provides specific rules for specialized types of services acquisitions, such as architect/engineering or research and development.
This BRIEFING PAPER is the first of two PAPERS focusing on those policies and procedures that are unique to, or principally affect, the Federal Government’s acquisition of services. Specifically, this Part I discusses (a) the treatment of services as “commercial items” under statutes and FAR Part 12, (b) performance-based service contracting, (c) the requirements for analyzing procurement opportunities against the laws and policy guidance on contract bundling, and (d) ordering mechanisms for services, including orders placed under Federal Supply Schedule contracts and under task order contracts. Part II, to be published later, will address a number of other issues affecting the business relationship between federal agencies and private sector services contractors, including public-private competitions under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76, the basics of the Service Contract Act, and the fundamental elements of termination for convenience and termination for default of service contracts. As the PAPERS note, new laws or revised regulations or administrative policies currently being considered could affect several of these issues.
The definition of a “commercial item” is set forth at FAR 2.101. Pursuant to the legislation, a “commercial item” includes certain support services for a commercial item and certain stand-alone services.
Rules applicable to the purchase of commercial items are set forth in FAR Part 12. Some of the highlights of these rules are set forth below.
The use of simplified acquisition procedures for commercial item procurements up to $5 million under the pilot program is a significant advantage to the Government. On the other hand, in such commercial item procurements, the Government does not have the right to unilaterally order changes in the resulting contract.
In addition, the use of commercial item procedures frees contractors from various statutory and regulatory requirements and permits the Government to use commercial financing procedures. However, the use of simplified acquisition procedures for commercial item contracts up to $5 million makes it easier for COs to steer awards to favored sources.
3. The flying machine must be designed to carry two persons having a combined weight of about 350 pounds, also sufficient fuel for a flight of 125 miles.
Less than 35 miles per hour, rejected.
This 1908 procurement closely tracks the FAR requirements for performance-based contracting. The solicitation set forth (a) requirements as results instead of how to perform, (b) measurable performance standards, (c) a price reduction if performance criteria are not met, and (d) incentives if performance criteria are exceeded.
A performance work statement (PWS) for goods is commonly referred to as a specification. A PWS for services is commonly referred to as a statement of work (SOW). The use of performance-based contracting has resulted in a new type of PWS called a statement of objectives (SOO). An SOO states what objectives (performance requirements) an agency wants to achieve. In response to an SOO set forth in a solicitation, each offeror develops and includes a SOW in its proposal. The SOW proposed by an offeror is its proposed method of meeting the performance requirements set forth in the SOO. The SOW in the winning proposal is normally incorporated in the contract establishing the contractor’s performance obligations. At this point, definitions are in flux while agencies experiment with new approaches. Neither an SOW nor SOO are defined in the FAR. What some refer to as an SOO, others may refer to as a performance-based SOW or performance specification.
Contract bundling is the practice of consolidating requirements previously purchased under separate contracts into one large contract. Bundling has been criticized as a barrier to (a) awards to small businesses that performed individual requirements before they were bundled and (b) competitive procurement.
CICA (a) mandates “full and open competition” 67 and (b) permits restrictive provisions only to the extent necessary to meet agency needs. 68 CICA does not mention contract bundling. However, bundling runs afoul of CICA if it improperly limits competition. The question in each case is whether such limitation is necessary to meet agency needs.
On the other hand, the GAO upheld the bundling of requirements for utilities services based on an agency determination that it would not receive competition for all requirements if they were solicited separately. 73 The GAO has also held expectation of technical benefits, 74 standardization and configuration control of parts, 75 and military readiness 76 to be sufficient grounds to justify bundling.
(1) DOD Guidance-On January 17, 2002, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, E.C. Aldridge, issued a memorandum expressing a commitment to provide small business concerns with the “maximum practicable opportunity” to participate in DOD contracting. The memorandum discussed the requirements with which the DOD must comply before awarding a bundled contract. 77 In addition, the DOD Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization issued a Benefit Analysis Guidebook as a reference to assist DOD acquisition strategy teams in performing a benefit analysis before bundling contract requirements. 78 While an extremely valuable reference, the Guidebook is intended to instruct the DOD only, and it only addresses the requirements under the FAR.
(t)here are some large hurdles for small business. One is that-and the main one is-that agencies sometimes, many times, only let huge contracts with massive requirements, and they tend to go to the same group of large corporate bidders. The term of art in Washington is called bundling. It effectively excludes small business. And we need to do something about that…And whenever possible, we’re going to insist we break down large federal contracts so that small business owners have got a fair shot at federal contracting.
(3) Additional Data Collection-In 1993, as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1994, Congress directed the DOD to conduct a comprehensive study on contract bundling and the effect on small business. 86 Since then, there have been numerous other studies to identify the extent of contract bundling and the impact of contract bundling on small business. The SBA’s Office of Advocacy has conducted several studies over the past several years, 87 and the General Accounting Office assessed the extent of contract bundling and the SBA’s efforts to oversee contract bundling by federal agencies. 88 In light of the variations in interpretation of statistical information and the difficulties in analyzing “bundling” from the statistical information in the then-existing federal procurement data system, Congress further amended the Small Business Act and included in the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000 a provision that requires a change in the federal procurement data system reporting of contract actions and the collection of information on bundling. 89 However, since the data collection requirements have just begun, no statistical reports on bundling using this new data have yet been issued.
In the Senate, on May 7, 2002, Senators Kerry (D-Mass.), Carnahan (D-Mo.), and Collins (R-Me.) introduced legislation to “prevent federal agencies from circumventing statutory safeguards intended to ensure that separate contracts are consolidated for economic reasons, not administrative expediency.” 91 This proposal was referred to the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, of which Senator Kerry is chairman. Separately, Senator Collins introduced legislation that would require only the DOD to prove the cost benefit of consolidating a contract in excess of $5 million.92 This proposal was referred to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
To keep pace with the dramatic increase in Government purchases of services, agencies are using innovative ordering mechanisms. The driving force behind the development and expanded use of these mechanisms was FASA.
In particular, since the enactment of FASA, there has been a dramatic increase in services available under Federal Supply Schedules administered by the General Services Administration. This resulted, in part, from FASA’s expanding the definition of “commercial items” to include certain services (discussed above) and the outreach efforts made by the GSA to meet customer agency demands. In addition, FASA added new requirements for the award and use of task order contracts. These requirements were implemented in FAR Subpart 16.5. The new rules for task order contracts apply to procurement by an agency solely for its own use and to multiple agency ordering mechanisms such as Government-wide acquisition contracts (GWACs) and multi-agency contracts (MACs).
The GSA was given authority to award and administer FSS contracts by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949. 93 FSS contracts are used to obtain “commonly used [commercial] supplies and services.” 94 The FAR generally requires agencies to use the FSS if the services being procured are available under the Schedules. 95 The FSS program is implemented in FAR Subpart 8.4 and Part 38 and the resulting FSS contracts. FSS contracts are separate and distinct from the indefinite-delivery contracts described at FAR Subpart 16.5 (discussed below).
Competition requirements under § 803 of the FY 2002 National Defense Authorization Act applicable to the DOD’s procurement of services under the FSS and ordering procedures limited to the FSS are discussed below.
FAR 8.402 contemplates that GSA may occasionally find it necessary to establish special ordering procedures for individual Federal Supply Schedules or for some Special Item Numbers (SINs) within a schedule. GSA has established special ordering procedures for services that require a Statement of Work. These special ordering procedures take precedence over the procedures in FAR 8.404 (b)(2) through (b)(3).
GSA has determined that the prices for services contained in the contractor’s price list applicable to this Schedule are fair and reasonable. However, the ordering office using this contract is responsible for considering the level of effort and mix of labor proposed to perform a specific task being ordered and for making a determination that the total firm fixed price or ceiling price is fair and reasonable.
(i) A statement of work (a performance-based statement of work is preferred) that outlines, at a minimum, the work to be performed, location of work, period of performance, deliverable schedule, applicable standards, acceptance criteria, and any special requirements (i.e., security clearances, travel, special knowledge, etc.) should be prepared.
(ii) The request should include the statement of work and request the contractors to submit either a firm-fixed price or a ceiling price to provide the services outlined in the statement of work. A firm-fixed price order shall be requested, unless the ordering office makes a determination that it is not possible at the time of placing the order to estimate accurately the extent or duration of the work or to anticipate cost with any reasonable degree of confidence. When such a determination is made, a labor hour or time-and-materials proposal may be requested. The firm-fixed price shall be based on the rates in the schedule contract and shall consider the mix of labor categories and level of effort required to perform the services described in the statement of work. The firm-fixed price of the order should also include any travel costs or other incidental costs related to performance of the services ordered, unless the order provides for reimbursement of travel costs at the rates provided in the Federal Travel or Joint Travel Regulations. A ceiling price must be established for labor-hour and time-and-materials orders.
(iii) The request may ask the contractors, if necessary or appropriate, to submit a project plan for performing the task, and information on the contractor’s experience and/or past performance performing similar tasks.
(iv) The request shall notify the contractors what basis will be used for selecting the contractor to receive the order. The notice shall include the basis for determining whether the contractors are technically qualified and provide an explanation regarding the intended use of any experience and/or past performance information in determining technical qualification of responses. If consideration will be limited to schedule contractors who are small business concerns as permitted by paragraph (2)(i) below, the request shall notify the contractors that will be the case.
(i) Based upon an initial evaluation of catalogs and price lists, the ordering office should identify the contractors that appear to offer the best value (considering the scope of services offered, pricing and other factors such as contractors’ locations, as appropriate). When buying IT professional services under SIN 132-51 ONLY, the ordering office, at its discretion, may limit consideration to those schedule contractors that are small business concerns. This limitation is not applicable when buying supplies and/or services under other SINs as well as SIN 132-51. The limitation may only be used when at least three (3) small businesses that appear to offer services that will meet the agency’s needs are available, if the order is estimated to exceed the micro-purchase threshold.
(ii) The request should be provided to three (3) contractors if the proposed order is estimated to exceed the micro-purchase threshold, but not exceed the maximum order threshold. For proposed orders exceeding the maximum order threshold, the request should be provided to additional contractors that offer services that will meet the agency’s needs. Ordering offices should strive to minimize the contractors’ costs associated with responding to requests for quotes for specific orders. Requests should be tailored to the minimum level necessary for adequate evaluation and selection for order placement. Oral presentations should be considered, when possible.
After responses have been evaluated against the factors identified in the request, the order should be placed with the schedule contractor that represents the best value. (See FAR 8.404).
A task order contract is a contract for services (other than an FSS contract) that does not specify a firm quantity. Orders for tasks are placed during the contract period. 108A task order contract can be awarded to a single contractor or multiple awards can be made. Task order contracts are governed by FAR Subpart 16.5 and should not to be confused with FSS contracts, which are governed by FAR Parts 8 and 38.
The FAR prohibits awards of requirements contracts for advisory and assistance services in excess of 3 years and $10 million except where either (a) the services are so unique that it is impracticable to make a multiple award of an IDIQ contract, or (b) the advisory and assistance services are not a significant portion of the contract. 154The FAR requires multiple awards of IDIQ contracts for advisory and assistance services in excess of 3 years and $10 million absent specified circumstances. 155 As previously discussed, it is unclear whether there can be multiple awards of a requirements contract.
The FAR was recently amended to expressly provide for multiple agency task and delivery order contracting in accordance with § 804 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2000. 156 The FAR 2.101 “Definitions” provisions now define the terms Government-wide acquisition contract and multi-agency contract.
Since a GWAC is a task or delivery order contract it must satisfy the standards under FASA and FAR Subpart 16.5 as discussed above. As discussed below, the Economy Act does not apply to orders under GWACs, unlike a multi-agency contract.
Procurement under a MAC must be consistent with the criteria applicable to an Economy Act procurement under FAR Part 17.5. In addition, a MAC is a task and delivery order contract that must also satisfy FASA and FAR Subpart 16.5.
1. Avoid statutory and regulatory requirements, including TINA cost or pricing data submission requirements and compliance with the CAS, by urging COs to purchase services using FAR Part 12 commercial item procedures. Bear in mind that bothsupport services for commercial items and standalone services can qualify as commercial items.
2. Remember that there is a statutory preference for the Government’s use ofperformance-based service contracting. When using performance-based contracting, the Government specifies what it wants instead of how to do it.
3. Recognize that contract bundling limits small business participation and competition. Bundling is limited by the Small Business Act and CICA. To justify bundling, agencies must conduct market research. The GAO will sustain a protestagainst bundling if it determines that the bundled procurement is not necessary to meet agency needs.
5. Understand that a task order contract is a contract for services, other than an FSS contract, that does not specify a firm quantity. IDIQ and requirements contracts are types of task order contracts. There is a statutory preference for multiple award task order contracts.
6. Note that it is unclear whether the FAR permits multiple awards of requirements contracts.
7. Be aware that orders issued under either a single or multiple award task order contract are generally not subject to protest except on the grounds the order increases the scope, period, or maximum value of the contract.
8. Remember that unless an exception applies, the contracting agency must give all contractors that received an award under a multiple award task order contract a “fair opportunity to be considered” for each order over $2,500.
9. Keep in mind that unless an exception applies, the FY 2002 National Defense Authorization Act § 803 requirement that DOD purchases of services over $100,000under multiple award contracts be made on a “competitive basis” applies to multiple award task order contracts, as well as to FSS contracts.
1 See summary of Federal Procurement Data Center procurement data in GAO Commercial Activities Panel, Final Report: Improving the Sourcing Decisions of the Government 24 (Apr. 30, 2002) (available at http:/. www.gao.gov).
2 Id. at 24, fig. 3 at 25.
5 Id. fig. 5, at 27.
6 Id. at 26, fig. 5 at 27.
7 Pub. L. No. 103-355 §§ 8104 (DOD), 8203 (civilian agencies), 108 Stat. 3243 (1994) (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 2377 (DOD); 41 U.S.C. § 264b (civilian agencies)).
8 Id. §§ 8105 (DOD), 8204 (civilian agencies).
9 Id. §§ 8001 (Government-wide), 8202 (civilian agencies).
10 Pub. L. No. 104-106, § 4201, 110 Stat. 186 (1996) (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 2306a (b)(1)(B) (DOD); 41 U.S.C. § 254b(b)(1)(B) (civilian agencies)).
11 Id. § 4205 (codified at 41 U.S.C. § 422(f)(2)(B)).
12 Id. § 4202 (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 2304(g)(1)(B) (DOD); 41 U.S.C. § 253(g)(1)(B) (civilian agencies)).
13 Pub. L. No. 105-261, § 803(a)(2)(D), 112 Stat. 1920 (1998); 41 U.S.C. § 403(12)(A).
14 Pub. L. No. 106-65, § 805, 113 Stat. 512 (1999) (codified at 41 U.S.C. § 403(12)(E)).
15 FAR 2.101 (“commercial item” definition, para. (5)).
16 Id. (“commercial item” definition, para. (6)).
20 Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics, Commercial Item Handbook (Version 1.0) app. C, at C-2 (Nov. 2001) (available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/ar/resources.htm).
22 SHABA Contracting, Comp. Gen. Dec. B-287430, 2001 CPD ¶ 105.
23 Johnson Controls World Servs., Inc. Comp. Gen. Dec. B-285144, 2000 CPD ¶ 108, 42 GC ¶ 108.
28 41 U.S.C. § 422(f)(2)(B).
29 29 C.F.R. § 4.123(e); see 41 U.S.C §§ 351-358.
32 National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-107, § 823, 115 Stat. 1012 (2001).
33 FAR subpt. 13.5; see 10 U.S.C. § 2304(g)(1)(B)(DOD); 41 U.S.C. § 253(g)(1)(B).
35 FAR 52.212-4, para. (c).
39 See, e.g., Ralph C. Nash, “Incentive Contracts: A Bit of History,” 10 Nash & Cibinic Rep. ¶ 49 (Sept. 1996).
40 OFPP Policy Letter 91-2, “Service Contracting” (Apr. 9, 1991), 56 Fed. Reg. 15,110 (Apr. 15, 1991).
41 Pub. L. No. 106-398, § 821, 114 Stat. 1654 (2000).
42 See FAR 2.101, 7.103(r), 7.105, 37.000, 37.102(a)(1), 37.103(c), subpt. 37.6.
45 Pub. L. No. 106-398, § 821(a); FAR 37.102(a)(2).
46 See Memorandum from Sean O’Keefe, OMB Deputy Dir., for Heads and Acting Heads of Departments and Agencies, “Performance Goals and Management Initiatives for the FY 2002 Budget” (Mar. 9, 2001) (available at ‹http:// www.whitehouse.gov/omb/›).
47 See Memorandum from Jacques Gansler, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics (Apr. 5, 2000); 42 GC ¶ 170.
48 See Moving Forward With Services Acquisition Reform: A Legislative Approach to Utilizing Commercial Best Practices: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Technology and Procurement Policy, House Comm. on Government Reform, 107th Cong. (Nov. 1, 2002) (statement of Angela B. Styles, Admin. for Federal Procurement Policy).
49 See Vernon J. Edwards, “Guest Appearance: The Service Contracting Policy Mess,” 15 Nash & Cibinic Rep. ¶ 55 (Nov. 2001).
50 See generally John Cibinic, “Contract Bundling: Another Update,” 15 Nash & Cibinic Rep. ¶ 21 (Apr. 2001).
51 Pub. L. No. 105-135, §§ 411-417, 111 Stat. 2592 (1997).
52 15 U.S.C. § 632(o); see, e.g., Phoenix Scientific Corp., Comp. Gen. Dec. B-286817, 2001 CPD ¶ 24 (protest alleging that the Air Force had improperly bundled a solicitation for multiple award task order contracts for unplanned weapons systems maintenance denied where the GAO found that the procurement would not result in a contract unsuitable for award to a small business concern), 43 GC ¶ 90.
55 15 U.S.C. § 644(e)(2)(A); see FAR 7.107, 10.001(a)(2), (a)(3).
56 15 U.S.C. § 644(e)(2)(B).
66 FAR 15.304(c)(3)(iii); see also TRS Research, Comp. Gen. Dec. B-290644, 2002 CPD ¶ 159 (GAO sustained a protest where the agency failed to follow procedural requirements in Small Business Act implementing regulations to justify bundling in a solicitation).
67 10 U.S.C. § 2304(a)(1)(A); 41 U.S.C. § 253(a)(1)(A).
68 10 U.S.C. § 2305(a)(1)(B)(ii); 41 U.S.C. § 253a(a)(2)(B).
69 Pacific Sky Supply, Comp. Gen. Dec. B-228049, 87-2 CPD ¶ 504, 30 GC ¶ 24.
70 Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., Comp. Gen. Dec. B-280397, 98-2 CPD ¶ 79, 40 GC ¶ 76.
72 National Customer Eng’g, Comp. Gen. Dec. B-251135, 72 Comp. Gen. 132, 93-1 CPD ¶ 225, 35 GC ¶ 572; Vantex Serv. Corp., Comp. Gen. Dec. B-290415, 2002 CPD ¶ 131.
73 Virginia Elec. & Power Co., Comp. Gen. Dec. B-285209, 2000 CPD ¶ 134, 42 GC ¶ 363.
74 S&K Elecs., Comp. Gen. Dec. B-282167, 99-1 CPD ¶ 111.
75 Electro-Methods, Inc., Comp. Gen. Dec. B-239141.2, 90-2 CPD ¶ 363.
76 Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., Comp. Gen. Dec. B-231822, 88-2 CPD ¶ 300.
79 Available at http:// www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020319-2.html.
81 Office of the White House Press Secretary, American Small Business: Driving Innovation and Creating Jobs (Mar. 19, 2002), available at http://w w w . w h i t e h o u s e . g o v / i n f o c u s /smallbusiness/.
82 67 Fed. Reg. 30403 (May 6, 2002).
84 See 77 Fed. Cont. Rep. (BNA) 723 (June 18, 2002).
85 OMB, Contract Bundling: A Strategy for Increasing Federal Contracting Opportunities for Small Business (Oct. 29, 2002), available at http://www. acqnet. gov/Notes/contractbundlingreport.pdf.
86 Pub. L. No. 103-160, § 847, 107 Stat. 1547 (1993).
87 See, e.g., Eagle Eye Publishers, Inc., The Impact of Contract Bundling on Small Business FY 1992-1999, prepared for the SBA Office of Advocacy under Contract #SBAHQ97-M0861 (Sept. 12, 2000), and The Impact of Contract Bundling on Small Business FY 1992-2001, prepared for the SBA Office of Advocacy under Contract #SBAHQ-01-M-0352 (Oct. 2, 2002).
88 GAO, Small Business: Limited Information Available on Contract Bundling’s Extent and Effect (GAO/GGD 00-82, Mar. 31, 2000).
90 Small Business Opportunity Enhancement Act of 2002, H.R. 2876, 107th Cong. (2002).
91 Small Business Federal Contractor Safeguard Act, S. 2466, 107th Cong. (2002).
92 Small Business Contracts Opportunity Act of 2002, S. 2463, 107th Cong. (2002).
93 See 10 U.S.C. § 2302(2)(C); 41 U.S.C. § 259(b)(3) (defining “competitive procedures” to include GSA’s multiple award schedule program).
98 See FAR 2.101 (“commercial item” definition, para. (6)).
101 See 78 Fed. Cont. Rep. (BNA) 39 (July 9, 2002).
102 Pub. L. No. 107-107, § 803 (b)(1), (c)(2), 115 Stat. 1012 (2001).
103 Id. § 803(c)(2); see also Ralph C. Nash, “Competition on Task Orders: A New Regime,” 16 Nash & Cibinic Rep. ¶ 20 (Apr. 2002).
104 67 Fed. Reg. 65,505 (Oct. 25, 2002) (amending DFARS pts. 208, 216); see 44 GC ¶ 424.
105 Pub. L. No. 107-107, § 803(b)(2); DFARS 208.404-70(c).
106 Pub. L. No. 107-107, § 803(b)(3), (4); DFARS 208.404-70(c).
107 See Terms and Conditions Applicable to Information Technology (IT) Professional Services (Special Item Number 132-51) and Electronic Commerce (EC) Services, para. 3. (“Ordering Procedures for Services (Requiring a Statement of Work)”); see also http://www.gsaAdvantage.gov.
109 Pub. L. No. 103-355, §§ 1004, 1054, 108 Stat. 3243 (1994) (codified at 10 U.S.C §§ 2304a-2304d (DOD); 41 U.S.C. §§ 253h-253k (civilian agencies)).
110 10 U.S.C. § 2304d(1); 41 U.S.C. § 253k(1); FAR 16.501-1.
113 See John Cibinic, Jr. & Ralph C. Nash, Jr., Formation of Government Contracts 1187 (George Washington Univ., 3d ed. 1998).
116 Chemical Tech., Inc. v. United States, 227 Ct. Cl. 120 (1981), 23 GC ¶ 172; Contract Mgmt, Inc. ASBCA 44885, 95-2 BCA ¶ 27,886, 37 GC ¶ 583; Fa. Kammerdiener GmbH & Co., KG, ASBCA 45248, 94-3 BCA ¶ 27,197, 36 GC ¶ 536.
121 White v. Delta Constr. Int’l, Inc., 285 F.3d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
123 Hermes Consol., Inc. ASBCA 52308, 02-1 BCA ¶ 31,767, 44 GC ¶ 96.
124 See Paul J. Seidman & Robert D. Banfield, “Maximizing Termination for Convenience Settlements,” Briefing Papers No. 95-5 (Apr. 1995); Paul J. Seidman & Robert D. Banfield, “Preparing Termination for Convenience Settlement Proposals for Fixed-Price Contracts,” Briefing Papers No. 97-11 (Oct. 1997).
126 10 U.S.C. § 2304a(b); 41 U.S.C. § 253h(b); see also FAR 16.504(a)(4).
127 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(a); 41 U.S.C. § 253j(a).
128 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(d); 41 U.S.C. § 253j(d).
129 10 U.S.C. § 2304a(d)(3); 41 U.S.C. § 253h(d)(3).
130 10 U.S.C § 2304a(d)(1)(B); 41 U.S.C. § 253h(d)(1)(B); FAR 16.504(a)(4)(iv),(v).
131 10 U.S.C. § 2304a(d)(3)(A); 41 U.S.C. § 253h(d)(3)(A); FAR 16.504(c).
132 Compare FAR 16.503 with FAR 16.504.
133 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. v. Barram, 226 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2000), 42 GC ¶ 417.
134 Ralph C. Nash, “Requirements-Type Contracts: Damages for Breach Can Be Calculated,” 16 Nash & Cibinic Rep. ¶ 46 (Sept. 2002).
136 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(d); 41 U.S.C. § 253j(d); FAR 16.505(a)(8).
137 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(b); 41 U.S.C. § 253j(b); FAR 16.505(b).
140 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(b); 41 U.S.C. § 253j(b); FAR 16.505(b)(2).
141 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e); 41 U.S.C. 253j(e); FAR 16.505(b)(5).
142 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e); 41 U.S.C. 253j(e); FAR 16.505(b)(5).
143 REEP, Inc., Comp. Gen. Dec. B-290665, 2002 CPD ¶ 156.
144 Community Consulting, Int’l., ASBCA 53489, 02-2 BCA ¶ 31,940.
145 Pub. L. No. 107-107, § 803(b)(1), (c)(2), 115 Stat. 1012 (2001).
146 Id. § 803(b); DFARS 216.505-70(c).
147 Pub. L. No. 107-107, § 803(c)(2)(C).
148 67 Fed. Reg. 65,505 (Oct. 25, 2002) (amending DFARS pts. 208, 216); see 44 GC ¶ 424.
149 See 10 U.S.C. § 2304b(i); 41 U.S.C. § 253i(i); 31 U.S.C § 1105(g); FAR 2.101.
151 10 U.S.C. § 2304b(b); 41 U.S.C. § 253i(b).
152 10 U.S.C. § 2304b(g); 41 U.S.C. § 253i(g).
153 10 U.S.C. § 2304b(e)(2); 41 U.S.C. § 253i(e)(2).
156 Pub. L. No. 106-65, § 804, 113 Stat. 512 (1999); 67 Fed. Reg. 56,117 (Aug. 30, 2002); FAR 2.101.
157 See The Multiagency/GWAC Program Managers Compact (Sept. 9, 1997), available at http://www.arnet.gov/Library/OFPP/PolicyDocs/magycom.html. See generally Raymond Fioravanti, “Multiple Award Task Order Contracts: Unique Opportunities, Unique Issues,” Briefing Papers No. 01-7 (June 2001).
160 GAO, Contract Management: Interagency Contract Program Fees Need More Oversight 2, n.2 (GAO-02-734, July 25, 2002).

References: § 803
 § 804
 § 803
 § 2377
 § 264
 § 4201
 § 2306
 § 254
 § 4205
 § 422
 § 4202
 § 2304
 § 253
 § 803
 § 403
 § 805
 § 403
 § 422
 § 4
 § 823
 § 2304
 § 253
 § 821
 § 821
 § 632
 § 644
 § 644
 § 2304
 § 253
 § 2305
 § 253
 § 847
 § 2302
 § 259
 § 803
 § 803
 § 803
 § 803
 § 2304
 § 253
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2304
 § 253
 § 2304
 § 253
 § 2304
 § 253
 § 2304
 § 253
 § 2304
 § 253
 § 2304
 § 253
 v. 
 § 2304
 § 253
 § 2304
 § 253
 § 2304
 § 253
 § 2304
 § 2304
 § 803
 § 803
 § 803
 § 2304
 § 253
 § 1105
 § 2304
 § 253
 § 2304
 § 253
 § 2304
 § 253
 § 804