Contract Award/Purchase Order under SAT

Can a new government contract/purchase order that is under SAT be awarded without the vendor's signature and only be signed by the Contracting Officer? Yes.  See FAR 13.302-1. 

If the contracting officer wants to get the contractor's acceptance of the purchase order before performance then signature from the contractor prior to the contracting officer is done.  See FAR 13.302-3.

pdavis said:

Can a new government contract/purchase order that is under SAT be awarded without the vendor's signature and only be signed by the Contracting Officer?

Actually the answer is much deeper than offered by policyguy.

You must have a contractors signature that constitutes acceptance (quote, usually a purchase order) or the contractor signature that constitutes a firm offer (bid or proposal and the common term that is used is contract. See the following).

You can use can use FAR part 13 (Quotes), FAR part 14 (Sealed Bid) or FAR Part 15 (Request for Proposal) procedures for the solicitation that will result in the contract/purchase order.  Ref - FAR 13.106-2.

If a quote per the reference already provided by policyguy the CO can sign but it is a request to the contractor to accept the government's offer based on the quote.  See FAR part 2 and the definition of "Purchase order".   Or in other words the firm offer is made by the government and the contractor has right of acceptance.   As noted in the policyguy's post getting the contractors signature is the acceptance.   Acceptance can be in the form of performance as well.  Without signature of acceptance or performance equal to acceptance you do not have an awarded purchase order.

If done by either FAR part 14 or 15 procedures the offer received from the contractor is considered "firm" and acceptance belongs to the government.  In such cases the signature of the government is acceptance of that firm offer and usually the contractor has signed their offer as a result of the solicitation process.   

 I will say that based on the general principles of what constitutes a contract (inclusive of purchase order) pursuant to the FAR both parties signature of offer/acceptance is needed to make it mutually binding.   Without both you do not have a purchase order or a contract..  See definition of the "Contract" in FAR part 2.

pdavis said:

Can a new government contract/purchase order that is under SAT be awarded without the vendor's signature and only be signed by the Contracting Officer?

Have you read FAR 13.004, Legal effect of quotations? Let us know your thoughts on it.

C Culham said:

Acceptance can be in the form of performance as well.

Vs

C Culham said:

I will say that based on the general principles of what constitutes a contract (inclusive of purchase order) pursuant to the FAR both parties signature of offer/acceptance is needed to make it mutually binding.   Without both you do not have a purchase order or a contract..  See definition of the "Contract" in FAR part 2.

How should we reconcile these two statements?

Having both signatures (written agreement) binds both parties to the terms and conditions and performance of the contract or order discussed above.  Otherwise, performance is optional.

Even without a signature, "substantial performance" by the contractor creates a binding contract that prevents the government from "withdrawing" the offer.

(See, FAR 13.004(b) and https://www.asbca.mil/Decisions/2012/57816 DODS, Inc. 6.18.12 WEB.pdf)

Jamaal Valentine said:

Have you read FAR 13.004, Legal effect of quotations? Let us know your thoughts on it.

Thank you I should have included this citation with my response.

Jamaal Valentine said:

Vs

How should we reconcile these two statements?

You have a quote, signed in some formality by the contractor.   The government issues a purchase order.    Government asks for contractor to sign and return purchase order.  Contractor does not but begins performance, affirmation of acceptance is by performance rather than signature.  Yet you have signed quote.   

Does this reconcile the statements?   I offer because quotes pursuant to the FAR and how they are generally received (orally versus written) especially for a need in excess of $25,000 unless construction then over $2,000.  Ref: FAR 13.106-1

 Probably not the best reconciliation but there you have it.  If you have one better I would be interested in seeing it.    I appreciate pointing out the hole.

In re-reading the thread and how the world of procurement operates now I should have also noted that in the case of an "order" placed against an indefinite delivery contract only the contracting officers signature is needed.  By my most recent experiences some folks use the term contract/purchase order for such orders because of not adhering to the specifics of terminology of the FAR.   

As I originally noted the answer is much deeper and it would be better to base a response on the specifics of a procurement and how it transpired.   I  tried to provide a general view without the frustration of trying to get the original poster to give specifics as to why he/she was asking the question.

@C Culham, the original poster—@pdavis—asked a yes–no question. These are also known as binary, polar, or general questions. I don’t know what pdavis means by ‘awarded’ so I vectored them to FAR 13.004 to get them to refine or answer their question.

Now, if ‘awarded’ means ‘given’ then the general answer is ‘yes.’ A purchase order can be given without a vendor’s signature. Based on the forum rules, we should support that answer with citations to laws, regulations, and decisions. 

FAR 13.004 says:

“When appropriate, the contracting officer may ask the supplier to indicate acceptance of an order by notification to the Government, preferably in [any worded or numbered expression that can be read, reproduced, and later communicated, and includes electronically transmitted and stored information.]”

Here, “the contract is established when the supplier accepts the [purchase order].” FAR 13.004(a) (outlining that acceptance may be indicated in writing or through substantial performance). Previously we read that the purchase order can be given (awarded) without the vendor’s signature. Now we see that a purchase order can be accepted to form a contract without a signature.

Thus, FAR seems to establish that awarding a purchase order without the vendor’s signature is permissible. This is in harmony with all of FAR 13.004 because “[t]he [purchase] order is an offer by the Government to the supplier to buy certain supplies or services upon specified terms and conditions.” Offers are given to offerees to accept or reject. A contract is established when the supplier accepts the offer. Acceptance of a purchase order (offer) can be indicated without a supplier signature in accordance with FAR 13.004(b). For example, in some other form of writing or through substantial performance.

Finally, based on the above, I cannot reconcile the two conflicting statements because I don’t think the one below is consistent with reading FAR as a whole -

C Culham said:

I will say that based on the general principles of what constitutes a contract (inclusive of purchase order) pursuant to the FAR both parties signature of offer/acceptance is needed to make it mutually binding.   Without both you do not have a purchase order or a contract..  See definition of the "Contract" in FAR part 2.

Jamaal Valentine said:

A contract is established when the supplier accepts the offer.

Add "in the manner and within the time specified by the offeror."

@Retreadfed, Can you can accept an offer any other way? (Honest question)

Retreadfed said:

Add "in the manner and within the time specified by the offeror."

Jamaal Valentine said:

we should support that answer with citations to laws, regulations, and decisions.

??? I may have not included the one you note, but I did otherwise didn't I?

Jamaal Valentine said:

I cannot reconcile the two conflicting statements because I don’t think the one below is consistent with reading FAR as a whole

Understood.  Consider the statement withdrawn.

C Culham said:

??? I may have not included the one you note, but I did otherwise didn't I?

You most certainly did. I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. I was just outlining the process.

Jamaal Valentine said:

Can you can accept an offer any other way? (Honest question)

To form a contract, acceptance generally must take place in the manner and within the time specified by the offeror.  However, the offeror can waive these requirements.  Contractors sometimes attempt to accept a government offer in some other way and argue that their alternate "acceptance" indicates their intent to be bound by the purported "contract."  My point was that this generally doesn't work.