BPAs and Exercise of Option Periods?

[...} the CAA and the DAR council have no clue, see http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentD...FRDOC_0001-0476.

Specifically, the interim rule speaks in terms of exercising options in BPAs!!! These are the leaders and experts in acquisition procedures?

Clearly, no need to repeat what is wrong with the idea but briefly:

1. BPAs are not contracts which simply means they are not enforceable in a court of law

2. FAR Option clauses refer to contracts

3. An option is a unilateral right (uncommon in UCC) to extend the period of performance

4. Just dumb, practically, who in their right mind would attempt to include option periods in a BPA? Got it, try to bind a contractor unilaterally to an "option period" under a vehicle that is not binding under an agreement that can be canceled at any time, no consideration and proceed to establish FAR 17 requirements including funds are available, etc? Shall I use 52.217-9?

5. Ridiculous.

I'll be submitting comments to this interim proposed rule, make no mistake though I should probably spend more time finding a woman though I do have several prospects but the acquisition is all very annoying.

BPAs under FAR 8 (see FAR 8.405-3) are quite a bit different than those under FAR Part 13 (see FAR 13.303). FAR Part 8 BPAs have much more in common with FAR Part 16 multiple award contracts than with FAR Part 13 BPAs. As you have seen from the interim rule you reference, options are used with FAR 8 BPAs. By using option periods, an agency could obtain discounts from prices below those contained in the schedule, and its options, against which the BPA is placed.

BPAs under FAR 8 (see FAR 8.405-3) are quite a bit different than those under FAR Part 13 (see FAR 13.303). FAR Part 8 BPAs have much more in common with FAR Part 16 multiple award contracts than with FAR Part 13 BPAs. As you have seen from the interim rule you reference, options are used with FAR 8 BPAs. By using option periods, an agency could obtain discounts from prices below those contained in the schedule, and its options, against which the BPA is placed.

Informal fallacy, establishes my argument unknowingly but thanks for your comment.

physiocrat,

It's not entirely accurate to say, in general, that a BPA is not a contract. A FAR Part 13 BPA is not a contract. A FAR Part 8 BPA (which should be called something else) typically takes the form of additional/modified terms or conditions to an existing Federal Supply Schedule. Such terms and conditions may or may not be enforceable, depending on how they are written.

However, I'd still like you to submit your comment to the FAR Councils to see how they answer it.

I can tell you how they'll answer it: Nonconcur.

I can tell you how they'll answer it: Nonconcur.

Thanks for replying, at the end of the day, probably more important to me how Vern replies rather than the councils. Your thoughts or comments?

GSA has created a wonderland of devices designed to make it easy to buy things. BPAs with options are among those devices. The objective is not to bind the BPA holder, but to make it possible for an agency to stay in a quasi-contractual relationship without getting new competition. This is the way things are. No point in being a purist about it. Just go with it. The councils will nonconcur with any comment that BPAs are not contracts and that BPA options therefore make no sense.

physiocrat,

It's not entirely accurate to say, in general, that a BPA is not a contract. A FAR Part 13 BPA is not a contract. A FAR Part 8 BPA (which should be called something else) typically takes the form of additional/modified terms or conditions to an existing Federal Supply Schedule. Such terms and conditions may or may not be enforceable, depending on how they are written.

However, I'd still like you to submit your comment to the FAR Councils to see how they answer it.

Thanks Don, disagree, a BPA is not a contract and there is a plethora of court cases establishing the fact plus common knowledge, agree it should be called something else (GSA) but the main reason it is not a contract is that there is no consideration or mutual conventional inducement or a promise to order anything under a resultant BPA.

No real need for me to submit comments but I am shocked at the councils ostensible ignorance of basic contract principles and law.

GSA has created a wonderland of devices designed to make it easy to buy things. BPAs with options are among those devices. The objective is not to bind the BPA holder, but to make it possible for an agency to stay in a quasi-contractual relationship without getting new competition. This is the way things are. No point in being a purist about it. Just go with it. The councils will nonconcur with any comment that BPAs are not contracts and that BPA options therefore make no sense.

OK, hard for me to "just go with it" because it makes no sense and am purist or at least have legal background or common sense. Instead, I'll think about more important things.

physiocrat,

If you care about being right, then read this thread:

wifcon.com/discus/messages/8523/9699.html

If you don't care about being right, then you've posted in the wrong place.

physiocrat,

If you care about being right, then read this thread:

wifcon.com/discus/messages/8523/9699.html

If you don't care about being right, then you've posted in the wrong place.

Rousseau with a thesaurus vs. Locke with the FAR.

Rousseau with a thesaurus vs. Locke with the FAR.

Thank you for the link, shocked that Vern might think that GSA BPAs are contracts, there is plenty of case law to the contrary, not that a court is the final authority on anything but the reasoning is bonified, not like the opinions of 5 out of 9 Supreme Court justices.

Thank you for the link, shocked that Vern might think that GSA BPAs are contracts, there is plenty of case law to the contrary, not that a court is the final authority on anything but the reasoning is bonified, not like the opinions of 5 out of 9 Supreme Court justices.

physiocrat,

Cite one case holding that a BPA under a Federal Supply Schedule (the type described at FAR 8.405-3) is not a contract. Should be an easy task if there is "plenty of case law."

Folks,

Who wants to bet that, if physiocrat bites, he will cite a case holding that a FAR Part 13 BPA is not a contract? The case will not have anything to do with BPAs under Federal Supply Schedules. Anyone?

physiocrat,

Cite one case holding that a BPA under a Federal Supply Schedule (the type described at FAR 8.405-3) is not a contract. Should be an easy task if there is "plenty of case law."

Folks,

Who wants to bet that, if physiocrat bites, he will cite a case holding that a FAR Part 13 BPA is not a contract? The case will not have anything to do with BPAs under Federal Supply Schedules. Anyone?

Works well Don, just not my issue; you do your research on case law and you will find the answer without my assistance, not important for me to cite or convince you that a BPA FAR 13 or FAR 8 is not a contract, if you think otherwise, don't care, God bless you and good luck because I have to paint my house and replace my shower diverter valve!

Works well Don, just not my issue; you do your research on case law and you will find the answer without my assistance, not important for me to cite or convince you that a BPA FAR 13 or FAR 8 is not a contract, if you think otherwise, don't care, God bless you and good luck because I have to paint my house and replace my shower diverter valve!

Folks or Don, in terms of legal analysis, the courts speak at length regarding the fact that BPAs are not contracts and see FAR 2 definition; are you really resting your hat that there is not a case on point for GSA BPAs? If so, your ideas are remarkable and parochial which is certainly your prerogative.

That's quite [ . . .] of you, physiocrat. You criticize Vern for saying that GSA BPAs are contracts, despite "plenty of case law to the contrary." Then when asked to cite one case (which you obviously can't), your housework becomes a priority.

Why did you start this thread anyway? To get someone to agree with you? How's that working out for you?

If so, your ideas are remarkable and parochial which is certainly your prerogative.

Well, some of us attended parochial schools.

That's quite [ . . .] of you, physiocrat. You criticize Vern for saying that GSA BPAs are contracts, despite "plenty of case law to the contrary." Then when asked to cite one case (which you obviously can't), your housework becomes a priority.

Why did you start this thread anyway? To get someone to agree with you? How's that working out for you?

I criticize no person Don, I review reasoning, contract laws and principles and provide my thoughts and ideas in this forum as a method of discussion and as I stated prior, I maintain no need for you to accept my view but clearly maintaining that a BPA is a contract is gratuitous at best and dumb, administratively in the alternative for reasons stated prior.

Your request to cite cases is nonsense because case law abounds; Hint: when the court speaks about BPAs, the same holding applies to GSA BPAs so your demand for a case on point is parochial considering both the definition of a contract, consideration, that sort of thing but go on and believe that options can be executed in BPAs, or that GSA BPAs are contracts, don't care.

If you want to enter into a discussion on the merits, course my view is not always right and that's called learning, I am more than happy to discuss, otherwise I can do without your ad hominems.

Certainly I can only benefit from your advice and experience which serves the purpose of this forum.

See L-3 Global Communications Solutions v. U.S., 82 Fed. Cl. 604 (2008):

This post-award bid protest is before the court on cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record filed under Rule 52.1( of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). L-3 Global Communications Solutions, Inc. (Global) challenges the award by the United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard or USCG) of contract number HSCG23-08-A-TMM001 (contract) to ADCI of Delaware, LLC (ADCI). The contract is a blanket purchase agreement (BPA), procuring satellite airtime and billing services for maritime communication terminals. Global seeks a declaration that the Coast Guard's award of the contract to ADCI was contrary to applicable procurement law and regulations, and requests a permanent injunction of the award to ADCI. Compl. at 1

I found no case in which the Court of Federal Claims or the Federal Circuit held that a GSA FSS BPA is not a contract.

physiocrat,

I attemtped to enter into a discussion on the merits, but when you realized that you had nothing to show for your statement "Vern might think that GSA BPAs are contracts, there is plenty of case law to the contrary", housework became a priority. It seems that you are now backing away from that statement. Good for you.

Let me ask you, is a BPA under FAR Part 13 the same as a BPA under FAR Part 8? In other words, does the fact that they are called the same thing mean that they are the same thing?

physiocrat,

I attemtped to enter into a discussion on the merits, but when you realized that you had nothing to show for your statement "Vern might think that GSA BPAs are contracts, there is plenty of case law to the contrary", housework became a priority. It seems that you are now backing away from that statement. Good for you.

Let me ask you, is a BPA under FAR Part 13 the same as a BPA under FAR Part 8? In other words, does the fact that they are called the same thing mean that they are the same thing?

Don, housework is housework, I don't like it either just trying to interject a personal touch so you know me a little better. I see where you are going; both are termed BPAs with different rules, there still exists no consideration unlike IDIQs not even an exchange for a promise, therefore no contract exists. Curious, what makes you think that the plethora of cases would not apply to GSA BPAs or what do you believe is the consideration for entering into any BPA?

Curious, what makes you think that the plethora of cases would not apply to GSA BPAs or what do you believe is the consideration for entering into any BPA?

Please cite one of the plethora of cases to which you refer. Be sure to identify the case's reference to a FAR 8 BPA. After that, re-read the FAR discussion of Part 8 and Part 13 BPAs.

physiocrat - First and foremost I agree with Don, poor taste with regard to your posts to this forum. As you seem to be keen on such things as rules, case law, etc. I susgest you re-read the terms of use for this site, especially Rule 10. and the part titled "Responding to Posts".

Don - The following is from http://interact.gsa.gov/wiki/schedule-bpa-contract

Is a Schedule BPA a "Contract?"

Submitted by Brad Powers on Wednesday, January 12, 2011 - 6:57 PM BPANot usually.

A Blanket Purchase Agreement is Usually Not a ?Contract? for Most Federal Procurement Purposes

Summary: A BPA (whether a Part 13 BPA or a SubPart 8.4 BPA) is not a contract because it neither obligates funds not requires placement of any orders against it. Instead, it is an understanding (sometimes referred to as a ?vehicle? or ?agreement? in regulations, court, and review board cases) between an ordering agency and a contractor that allows the agency to place future orders more quickly by identifying terms and conditions applying to those orders, a description of the supplies or services to be provided, and methods for issuing and pricing each order. The government is not obligated to place any orders. Either party may cancel a BPA at any time. The award of a BPA lacks mutuality of consideration. However, circumstances may transform a BPA into a binding obligation, that is, an enforceable contract. An enforceable contract exists when the ordering agency places an order against the BPA and the contractor accepts it (either by signature or by commencing performance). When an order is issued under the BPA and the BPA-holder agrees to provide the service, then that individual order becomes a binding contract between the parties and both parties are then bound to all the terms and conditions in the BPA for that order. The result is that a BPA is a flexible simplified method of procurement for filling anticipated repetitive requirements that is itself somewhat protest-resistant - - at least until that first order is placed.

[for the purpose of business size] 13 C.F.R. ?121.404 (g) (vi): ?A Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) is not a contract. Goods and services are acquired under a BPA when an order is issued. Thus, a concern's size may not be determined based on its size at the time of a response to a solicitation for a BPA.?

[for the purpose of the requirement to be registered in CCR: ?Prospective contractors shall be registered in the CCR database prior to award of a contract or agreement...?] 48 C.F.R. ? 4.1101 defines ?agreement? as ?basic agreement, basic ordering agreement, or blanket purchase agreement.?

The Federal Acquisitions Regulations (FAR) System "prescribes policies and procedures for establishing and using basic agreements and basic ordering agreements." 48 C.F.R. ? 16.701. Both "basic agreements" and "basic ordering agreements" contain "contract clauses applying to future contracts between the parties during [the] term [of the contract]." 48 C.F.R. ?? 16.702(a), 16.703(a).

Almar Indus., Inc. v. United States, 16 Cl.Ct. 243 (1989).

Fay Zhengxing v. United States, 71 Cl.Ct. 732 (2006).

Labat-Anderson, Inc v. United States & JHM Research and Development Inc., __Cl.Ct.___ (2001), No. 01-350C, Wilson, J.

Modern Systems Technology Corp v. United States, 24 Cl.Ct. 360 (1991) aff?d 979 F.2d 200 (1992).

Boehringer Mannheim Corp., B-279238, May 21, 1998.

Canon USA, Inc., B-311254.2, June 10, 2008.

Logan LLC, B-294974.6, December 1, 2006.

Carl,

Thank you for stepping in. I prefer to debate this issue with you.

I don't agree with Mr. Powers assessment, as I believe that his remarks only apply to a FAR Part 13 BPA (even though he referenced FAR Subpart 8.4). I think what causes confusion is that the same term (Blanket Purchase Agreement) is being used to describe two different things. I believe the regulations and decisions that you have cited in support of the proposition that a BPA is not a contract is true for one of the things that we call a blanket purchase agreement. That type of blanket purchase agreement is described at FAR 13.303-1(a) as follows:

A blanket purchase agreement (BPA) is a simplified method of filling anticipated repetitive needs for supplies or services by establishing ?charge accounts? with qualified sources of supply (see Subpart 16.7 for additional coverage of agreements).

If you think that accurately describes the type of blanket purchase agreement discussed in FAR Subpart 8.4, then we'll have to disagree.

I have been following this thread for a couple of days and would have to say I generally agreed with Don as he made the more compelling argument. However, I did come across the following case that specifically discusses FSS BPA?s and my opinion was swayed.

See AINS, Inc. B-400760.2; B-400760.3, conveniently posted on WIFCON here:

/legacy/a/d8cb47ced4d52e5c.pdf

The specific quote that changed my opinion is:

?Although Privasoft, Inc. submitted the original quotation, under the facts here we see no basis to object to the establishment of a BPA with Privasoft Corp., the vendor holding the FSS contract. A BPA is not a contract, and orders placed against an FSS BPA are placed against the underlying FSS contract.?

Darby8001,

What swayed you? The fact that the GAO said so? The decision doesn't explain why a BPA under a FSS is not a contract, it just states it as a given (citing nothing). The GAO has also said that delivery orders are not binding. Do you believe that?

Darby8001,

In case you are interested, we discussed the AINS decision in the forum:

/legacy/reg/8da4a34eac63747c.html

Don,

You swayed me back the other direction. I recind my previous post. Perhaps I was too hasty in my review of the case.

An open mind--how refreshing!

Don - We agree and we agreed in the previous thread you referenced. I am not swayed by Powers who has noted many of the cases that were discussed in the archived thread nor am I swayed by physiocrat who has brought absolutely nothing to the table to be persuasive.

Don - We agree and we agreed in the previous thread you referenced. I am not swayed by Powers who has noted many of the cases that were discussed in the archived thread nor am I swayed by physiocrat who has brought absolutely nothing to the table to be persuasive.

Works well [ . . . ], like it Don, cite the cases and you remark do you believe what GAO says? Very good; wasn't debating you just inquiring what you think is the consideration for establishing a GSA BPA. I too do not agree with GAO in all instances but for the most part, they are right on. GAO's jurisdiction of review of GSA task orders, in fact rests on the idea that BPAs are not contracts.

Again Don, what do you think is the consideration for entering into a GSA BPA?

One form of consideration for entering into the BPA is the opportunity to receive task/delivery orders with no further competition (or reduced competition in the event multiple BPAs are awarded)

GAO's jurisdiction of review of GSA task orders, in fact rests on the idea that BPAs are not contracts.

Ridiculous.

Again Don, what do you think is the consideration for entering into a GSA BPA?

That's actually the first time you asked me that. If you had read the discussion that I referenced earlier, the issue of consideration is addressed in Vern's post #635 and Carl Culham's post #153. Again, here's a link to that discussion:

wifcon.com/discus/messages/8523/9699.html

If you're not open to the possibility that a FSS BPA could be a binding contract (depending on how it is written), don't waste your time reading. Finish painting instead.

From the front page of WIFCON

Court of Federal Claims

Blanket Purchase Agreements. See Crewzers Fire Crew Transport, Incorporated v. U. S., No. 10-819C, March 18, 2011. (March 22, 2011)

/legacy/reg/92f8f277d14bba3c.html

Not arguing anything, just adding something if people missed.

From the front page of WIFCON

Court of Federal Claims

Blanket Purchase Agreements. See Crewzers Fire Crew Transport, Incorporated v. U. S., No. 10-819C, March 18, 2011. (March 22, 2011)

/legacy/reg/92f8f277d14bba3c.html

Not arguing anything, just adding something if people missed.

FAR Part 13 BPA.

Well this thread in almost equal to a bad dream, but even so I have been game in re-living it as I am always open to new thoughts.

I am convinced more than ever, after revisiting the references, especially those in the Powers blog referenced previously, that GAO has actually stated that a BPA can in fact be a contract. In the archived thread referenced a few times Vern noted the poor wording of the GAO Canon decision, and I agree. But having re-read all the references including Canon I have concluded that GAO acknowledged in this specific decision that a BPA can in fact be a contract in exactly the way that a FSS contract makes a BPA a contract.

My conclusion is based on how I read the following statement from the Canon Decision which I restate here based on my read. What GAO is saying is that a BPA is not a generally a contract (FAR Part 13) but (rather) can be when an order is placed against the BPA OR if the BPA is part of or otherwise required by a new contract. Or in other words when a FSS contract requires that a BPA is an "order" that must be accepted then the BPA becomes a contract. Here is the GAO quote from Canon that I am interpreting in this manner.

?As relevant here, FAR sect. 8.405-3(a)(1) authorizes the establishment of BPAs under FSS contracts as a means to fill ?repetitive needs for supplies or services.? It is well-settled, however, that a BPA itself is not a contract; rather, a contract is formed by the subsequent placement of a valid order against the BPA, or by the incorporation of the basic agreement into a new contract.?

Right read? I am sure some folks following this thread will let me know their opinion but in the end I agree with all previous conclusions, save that of Ms. pyhsiocrat, that a BPA established under the authority of the parent FSS contract is a contract.

But having re-read all the references including Canon I have concluded that GAO acknowledged in this specific decision that a BPA can in fact be a contract in exactly the way that a FSS contract makes a BPA a contract.

My conclusion is based on how I read the following statement from the Canon Decision which I restate here based on my read. What GAO is saying is that a BPA is not a generally a contract (FAR Part 13) but (rather) can be when an order is placed against the BPA OR if the BPA is part of or otherwise required by a new contract. Or in other words when a FSS contract requires that a BPA is an "order" that must be accepted then the BPA becomes a contract. Here is the GAO quote from Canon that I am interpreting in this manner.

?As relevant here, FAR sect. 8.405-3(a)(1) authorizes the establishment of BPAs under FSS contracts as a means to fill ?repetitive needs for supplies or services.? It is well-settled, however, that a BPA itself is not a contract; rather, a contract is formed by the subsequent placement of a valid order against the BPA, or by the incorporation of the basic agreement into a new contract.?

Right read? I am sure some folks following this thread will let me know their opinion but in the end I agree with all previous conclusions, save that of Ms. pyhsiocrat, that a BPA established under the authority of the parent FSS contract is a contract.

Why is it so hard to understand that the terms of the blanket purchase agreement are simply incorporated into the orders? A BPA (at least under Part 13) is simply a prearranged, "agreed" set of terms and conditions that apply to any orders, placed against it, so that the parties don't have to issue reams of paper and establish all the details each time an order is issued. Isn't the order the actual contract vehicle?

Joel - Yes Joel under FAR Part 13 the order (or purchase order per your post) under a BPA is viewed as the contract, no arguement on my part on this fact. The question that my post addresses is whether a BPA issued under FAR Part 8 against a FSS contract is a contract or not. My post is intended to support that it usually is.

I note that your post is slightly confusing because in one part you state "basic ordering agreement" and then go on to reference "BPA". You do realize that under the FAR these are different, correct?

I note that your post is slightly confusing because in one part you state "basic ordering agreement" and then go on to reference "BPA". You do realize that under the FAR these are different, correct?

Yes, thanks, Carl. I was in Walmart, being hurried by my wife. I didn't mean to refer to a BOA. Now I'm sitting in the gym, watching my wife's volleyball team. I had some time to fix it. Thanks.

Why is it so hard to understand that the terms of the basic ordering agreement are simply incorporated into a purchase order? A BPA (at least under Part 13) is simply a prearranged, "agreed" set of terms and conditions that apply to any purchase orders, placed against it, so that the parties don't have to issue reams of paper and establish all the details each time a purchase order is issued. Isn't the purchase order the actual contract vehicle?

Emphasis added.

The terms of BPAs under FAR 13.303 are not incorporated into "purchase orders." The whole idea behind BPAs as discussed in FAR 13.303 is to avoid having to issue purchase orders. See FAR 13.303-2(a)(3) and 13.303-5(e). If you are going to issue a purchase order, why bother with a BPA? By tradition and convention for many decades and in many forums, orders against BPAs have been and are referred to as "calls," not purchase orders. That is because BPA "calls" can, and generally should, be oral.

See, e.g., Palm Springs General Trading and Contracting Establishment, ASBCA No. 56290, 10-1 BCA ? 34406 (2010); Myosook H. Whitcomb, ASBCA No. 12744, 69-1 BCA ? 7770 (1969); Department of Labor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Debarment: Bruce Church, Inc., 52 FR 28613 (Julsy 31, 1987); The Peddler's Motor Inn, GAO Dec. B-227110, 87-2 CPD ? 112; etc.

Use of correct (or, at least, received) terminology avoids confusion.

Emphasis added.

The terms of BPAs under FAR 13.303 are not incorporated into "purchase orders." The whole idea behind BPAs as discussed in FAR Subpart 13.303 is to avoid having to issue purchase orders. See FAR 13.303-2(a)(3) and 13.303-5(e). If you are going to issue a purchase order, why bother with a BPA? By tradition and convention for many decades and in many forums, orders against BPAs have been and are referred to as "calls," not purchase orders. That is because BPA "calls" can, and generally should, be oral.

See, e.g., Palm Springs General Trading and Contracting Establishment, ASBCA No. 56290, 10-1 BCA ? 34406 (2010); Myosook H. Whitcomb, ASBCA No. 12744, 69-1 BCA ? 7770 (1969); Department of Labor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Debarment: Bruce Church, Inc., 52 FR 28613 (Julsy 31, 1987); The Peddler's Motor Inn, GAO Dec. B-227110, 87-2 CPD ? 112; etc.

Use of correct (or, at least, received) terminology avoids confusion.

I agree, Vern. I was probably editing my post as you were typing but you are correct.

My conclusion is based on how I read the following statement from the Canon Decision which I restate here based on my read. What GAO is saying is that a BPA is not a generally a contract (FAR Part 13) but (rather) can be when an order is placed against the BPA OR if the BPA is part of or otherwise required by a new contract. Or in other words when a FSS contract requires that a BPA is an "order" that must be accepted then the BPA becomes a contract. Here is the GAO quote from Canon that I am interpreting in this manner.

?As relevant here, FAR sect. 8.405-3(a)(1) authorizes the establishment of BPAs under FSS contracts as a means to fill ?repetitive needs for supplies or services.? It is well-settled, however, that a BPA itself is not a contract; rather, a contract is formed by the subsequent placement of a valid order against the BPA, or by the incorporation of the basic agreement into a new contract.?

Right read? I am sure some folks following this thread will let me know their opinion but in the end I agree with all previous conclusions, save that of Ms. pyhsiocrat, that a BPA established under the authority of the parent FSS contract is a contract.

Carl,

So you think that the "or incorporation of the basic agreement into a new contract" is a reference to a FSS BPA? I had not read it that way, but I'm not sure what else it could mean.

While arguing about whether FSS BPAs are contracts may be fun, it is a distraction from the more interesting truth about BPAs -- they are nothing more than mechanisms to enable agencies to avoid competitive practices when ordering against schedule contracts. I don't think a BPA lets an agency do anything under the contract that it could not do without the BPA. Heck, you can do anything in an order under a schedule contract if the contractor will go along. But if an agency establishes a BPA, then it need no longer follow the pesky ordering procedures in FAR 8.405-2, unless the agency is foolish enough to establish multiple BPAs.

It's quite smart, really. Using FSS contracts is like TEGWAR: The Exciting Game Without Any Rules, introduced to the world in the baseball novel Bang the Drum Slowly.

Don - Yes.

Vern - It might be TEGWAR Rev. 1, when you consider FAC 2005-50 and its discussion of FSS-BPAs especially the "new" 8.405-3(a)(3)(i).

There aren't any rules. You don't need a revision.

You are wrong, physiocrat, and "beginning, intermediate or senior contract specialists" should ignore your last post, because you didn't know what you were talking about when you wrote it. GSA schedule contracts contain the following clause:

I-FSS-646 BLANKET PURCHASE AGREEMENTS (MAY 2000)

Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPA's) can reduce costs and save time because individual orders and invoices

are not required for each procurement but can instead be documented on a consolidated basis. The Contractor

agrees to enter into BPA's with ordering activities provided that:

(a) The period of time covered by such agreements shall not exceed the period of the contract including

option year period(s);

( Orders placed under such agreements shall be issued in accordance with all applicable regulations

and the terms and conditions of the contract; and

( c) BPAs may be established to obtain the maximum discount (lowest net price) available in those

schedule contracts containing volume or quantity discount arrangements.

Since the contractor agrees to enter into BPAs when it enters into a schedule contract, the consideration that binds the parties to the schedule contract covers any BPAs. No new consideration is required. Is there an exchange of promises? That depends on what the BPA says.

1. I've suspended a member for a time until I can do more research. I may lift the suspension shortly.

2. A personal attack is obvious. Look at YHOO discussion boards. It goes like this. "You are an _ _ _ _ _." Saying someone is cowardly, does not qualify as a personal attack--for the moment--as it was used. However, its use isn't necessary to express oneself and should be expected to upset the person receiving the note. If I didn't delete the post where it is used, I will.

3. Stating that one is looking for someone of the opposite sex to meet, is more appropriate for a dating site--which this site is not. Referring to men as "Ladies" or women as "Men" is something different altogether. I hope I deleted that.

4. Calling a former President our worst "despot" or responding to the comment simply does not fit in the discussion. I don't view it as political. I would view it as political if his party was mentioned and that party was attacked.

5. Much of this thread was off topic, that is the cause of most of the deleted posts.

I probably missed something else.

Wifcon.com is intended to be a professional site where work-related issues are discussed. As long as discussions are professional and work-related, I can defend its use by employees to their employers. If the government wants to allow its employees to use social sites, that is a matter to be judged by taxpayers. Although I will allow some topics not related to work and some posts not related to work, this is a site dedicated to work.

I depend on you to police yourselves. Over the years, you have done a good job. Please continue with this.

I've reopened the thread, with the intent to make more edits of posts. Please to do not comment on what I did.