• R.D. Lieberman,Consultant

Caution on Refreshes of Your Multiple Award Schedule Contract

The General Services Administration (“GSA”) announced on April 26, 2018 that it will

require that multiple award schedule contractors accept the bilateral Commercial Supplier Agreements (“CSA”) modification through a “refresh” of the contract. This change is described in 83 Fed. Reg. 7631 (Feb. 22, 2018) and will add or update add/update clause 552.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions Commercial Items (JAN 2017) (DEVIATION - FEB 2018) (ALTERNATE I - JAN 2017) (DEVIATION - FEB 2007).

The inclusion of this new clause involving Commercial Supplier Agreements makes certain common commercial license terms unenforceable, and invalidates them, even if they are included in your contract. These clauses often conflict with the Appropriations language in the U.S. Code. The new clause also addresses liability and assignments as well as other matters.

This blog recently commented on directed change orders to contract clauses. See “Agency's Unilateral Modification of Funding Clause is a Breach of Contract, Not a Proper Change Order.” The blog discussed Kelly-Ryan, Inc., ASBCA No. 57168, 18-1 BCA ¶36944, where the government unilaterally removed one clause and replaced it with a new clause, without attempting to negotiate with the contractor. Nor did the government grant any valuable consideration to the contractor for the change. The Board stated that this was “the very definition of a material breach of an express term of a contract.” The Board noted an earlier case which stated “if one party were to simply reduce its obligations under the contract and the other received nothing in return, there would be no consideration to the short-changed party for having waived its contractual expectations” (citing Supply & Service Team GmbH, ASBCA No. 59630, 17-1 BCA ¶ 36678.)

In fact, it is likely that since the material obligations of the contractor are changed, the contractor can notify the government that it will submit a request for an equitable adjustment (“REA”), or if not granted, a claim to make itself whole. GSA’s view that it can unilaterally “refresh” (change) the contract, seems inconsistent with the requirement for consideration, and contractors should look carefully at the impact of the CSA refresh.

Takeaway: Look closely at the new CSA clause, and if it impacts your material obligations in the contract, so state to the GSA in writing. Pursuant to the changes clause, notify GSA that you will seek an equitable adjustment or submit a claim for the impact, if GSA does not grant a fair equitable adjustment.

For other helpful suggestions on government contracting, visit:

Richard D. Lieberman’s FAR Consulting at https://www.richarddlieberman.com/, and Mistakes in Government Contracting at https://richarddlieberman.wixsite.com/mistakes/.

0 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

The website of Richard Donald Lieberman, a government contracts consultant and retired attorney who is the author of both "The 100 Worst Mistakes in Government Contracting" (with Jason Morgan) and "The 100 Worst Government Mistakes in Government Contracting." Richard Lieberman concentrates on Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) consulting and training, including  commercial item contracting (FAR Part 12), compliance with proposal requirements (FAR Part 15 negotiated procurement), sealed bidding (FAR Part 14), compliance with solicitation requirements, contract administration (FAR Part 42), contract modifications and changes (FAR Part 43), subcontracting and flowdown requirements (FAR Part 44), government property (FAR Part 45), quality assurance (FAR Part 46), obtaining invoiced payments owed to contractors,  and other compliance with the FAR. Mr.Lieberman is also involved in numerous community service activities.  See LinkedIn profile at https://www.linkedin.com/in/richard-d-lieberman-3a25257a/.This website and blog are for educational and information purposes only.  Nothing posted on this website constitutes legal advice, which can only be obtained from a qualified attorney. Website Owner/Consultant does not engage in the practice of law and will not provide legal advice or legal services based on competence and standing in the law. Legal filings and other aspects of a legal practice must be performed by an appropriate attorney. Using this website does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Although the author strives to present accurate information, the information provided on this site is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date.  The views expressed on this blog are solely those of the author. FAR Consulting & Training, Bethesda, Maryland, Tel. 202-520-5780, rliebermanconsultant@gmail.com

Copyright © 2020 Richard D. Lieberman