Design Contract

sue - Some clarifications first? Was FAR Part 36 procedures used for the procurement? Has the contract been awarded? If awarded is the contract FFP?

sue - Some clarifications first? Was FAR Part 36 procedures used for the procurement? Has the contract been awarded? If awarded is the contract FFP?

Yes, FAR Part 36 procedures were used for the procurement? The contract has been awarded and it is a Firm Fixed Price contract.

It sounds to me like the contractor is asking to correct a unilateral mistake after award. If so, the rules are in FAR 14.407-4.

It sounds to me like the contractor is asking to correct a unilateral mistake after award. If so, the rules are in FAR 14.407-4.

Thanks Vern.

The Manthos protest decision posted on WIFCON today caught my attention. In it Manthos apparently inadvertently ?purposely? did not comply with a material requirement of the solicitation. In lieu of submitting Option Year Prices as required by the solicitation Manthos proposal specifically stated that "Option Years 1 through 4 will also be priced upon request." The decision found that ?Based on this statement, it is clear that the omission was not a mistake? and ?Manthos purposely omitted [Option year Prices] from its proposal. Under these circumstances, the option prices could not be added through clarifications.? It appears that ?purposely? not complying with a requirement prevents the non-compliance from being corrected as a mistake or through clarifications. I imagine that this prohibition on correcting post award mistakes per 14.407-4 would apply to any mistakes done ?purposely?.

I imagine that this prohibition on correcting post award mistakes per 14.407-4 would apply to any mistakes done “purposely”.

What prohibition are you talking about? The GAO decision has nothing to do with Sue1234's question. The GAO decision is not about post award correction of a mistake. The GAO decision is about the proper use of clarification versus discussion during source selection. The decision stands for the proposition that an agency can permit correction of only apparent clerical errors through clarification, but not other mistakes. Other mistakes must be corrected through discussion.

I agree. I merely found interesting that as stated in the case:

"an agency may allow an offeror to correct a mistake or clerical error in a cost or price proposal through clarifications only where both the existence of the mistake and the amount intended by the offeror are apparent from the face of the proposal"

and that GAO found that there was no mistake because:

"while it was clear from Manthos's proposal that the option year pricing had been omitted, the proposal specifically stated that "Option Years 1 through 4 will also be priced upon request." Cost Proposal at 8. Based on this statement, it is clear that the omission was not a mistake--despite the clear requirement in the RFP for option year prices, Manthos purposely omitted them from its proposal."

No mistake no opportunity to correct granted.

It seems as though a mistake can not be done "purposely". As such, I wondered if correcting any mistake, including mistakes found post award, are restricted to those mistakes that are determined by the CO not to have been done purposely by the contractor in the first place.

You don't understand the decision. The agency could have allowed the offeror to fix its non-mistake mistake through discussions. However, it could not let it fix its non-mistake mistake through clarifications.

You're taking the thread astray. The GAO decision has nothing to do with the question we were asked.