Page images
PDF
EPUB

APPENDIX A

Summary of Data

CPIF
D.C. Govt.

DOD
DOT
DOTCAB

DSA
ENGBCA

This appendix presents data on institutions and procedures that govern the resolution of disputes concerning the award and performance of Government contracts. It reflects the responses to questionnaires sent to industry, including representatives of the small business community, and to Government procuring agencies. The industry respondents were selected at random from lists prepared by business associations, the Commission staff, and Study Group 4 (Legal Remedies).

Information concerning the General ACcounting Office (GAO) is based on interviews with GAO personnel and examination of pertinent GAO files. Profile data on about 2,800 contract disputes were obtained from 13 agency responses to a questionnaire prepared by Study Group 4. Additional data may be found in Volume II of its report.

FAA

FHA

FP
FPI
GAO
GSA
GSABCA

Cost-plus-incentive-fee
District of Columbia

Government
Department of Defense
Department of Transportation
Department of Transportation

Contract Appeals Board
Defense Supply Agency
Corps of Engineers Board of

Contract Appeals Federal Aviation

Administration Federal Highway

Administration Fixed-price Fixed-price-incentive General Accounting Office General Services Administration General Services Administration

Board of Contract Appeals Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare Department of Housing and

Urban Development Department of Interior Board

of Contract Appeals Invitations for bids Langley Air Force Base National Aeronautics and Space

Administration National Aeronautics and Space

Administration Board of

Contract Appeals Statement of Work/Specifica

tion and Design Veterans Administration Veterans Administration

Contract Appeals Board

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

DISPUTES ARISING IN CONNECTION
WITH CONTRACT PERFORMANCE

Thirteen Federal agencies submitted responses in the form of profiles that represent a sampling of contract disputes over recent years.

The profiles requested the following information:

Name of contractor and size of business
Real party in interest and size of business
Type of contract—method of payment,

purpose, and method of selection
Method of payment provided in contract
Purpose of contract
Method of selection of contractor
Object of appeal
Amount sought on appeal
Organizational unit where appeal origi-

nated
Contract provisions involved in dispute
Docket and decision dates
Was there a hearing
Were accelerated procedures used
Manner of resolution
Amount of settlement or award

Appeal to a higher level About 2,187 profiles were received from the 13 agencies covering disputes brought before nine agency boards of contract appeals during the period October 1967 through June 1971. In addition, 597 profiles of disputes at the contracting officer level were received. The data collection effort at the contracting officer level was made on a more limited basis and covered a shorter timespan. While no attempt was made to relate a particular dispute at the contracting officer level to the corresponding board appeal, some of this information can be found in the original profiles.

Board level AECBCA ASBCA COMMBCA ENGBCA DOTCAB GSABCA IBCA NASABCA VACAB

Earliest

date Jan. 68 May 70 June 64 Sept. 60 Jan. 69 May 69 Oct. 67 Apr. 69 June 68

Jan. 71 Apr. 71 Apr. 71 June 71 Mar. 71

June 71 May 71

June 71 May 71

[blocks in formation]

NUMBER OF PROFILES RECEIVED

Number of profiles

30

Board level

[blocks in formation]

Board level AECBCA COMMBCA ASBCA ENGBCA DOTCAB GSABCA IBCA NASABCA VACAB

Contracting

officer level Air Force Navy NASA GSA АЕС Army

53% 57% 47%

51

71%

348 79 53

68% 85% 42% 64%

ASBCA GSABCA ENGBCA IBCA NASABCA DOTCAB AECBCA VACAB COMMBCA

[blocks in formation]

152

20%

[blocks in formation]

9%

[blocks in formation]

The percentages for supply contracts by jurisdiction were:

by changes and termination for default:

Board level

[blocks in formation]

0%

[blocks in formation]

Contracting

officer level Air Force

33%
ASBCA

46% Navy

GSABCA

23% NASA

84%
ENGBCA

4% GSA

81%
IBCA

16% AEC

38%
NASABCA

58% Army

80%
DOTCAB

29% AECBCA

23% VACAB

19%

COMMBCA 48% When cases before the ASBCA and ENGBCA are added (1,451 cases of which 451 were supply contracts), the combined average is 31 percent, the same as the average for all boards.

The percentages of other types of contracts were very small in comparison to those of supply and construction contracts. Construction and supply contracts combined represented 77 percent of all board cases and 81 percent of all contracting officer decisions. The number of cases by type of contract were: Type of contract Board

C.O.

Total Construction 1,0587

1257

1,183 77%

81% Supply

637

361 Repair

154 Nonpersonal services 138

142 Research and development

93 Other 137

177 Total 2,187

2,784

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

At the contracting officer level, the major sources of the controversies were:

998

37

191

[blocks in formation]

63

NATURE OF THE DISPUTE

At both the contracting officer and board levels, the three most prevalent sources of controversy were: SOW/S&D, changes, and default termination.

The provisions in dispute at the contracting officer and board levels ranked by number of cases were:

At the board level, the specifications were most often the cause of the dispute, followed

Total no.

[blocks in formation]

741 670

90

652 580 356 152

[blocks in formation]

Provision in dispute SOW/S&D Changes Default termination Changed conditions Liquidated damages Time extension Inspection Overhead costs Options and price escalation

158 130 126

[ocr errors]

117

[ocr errors]

79

27

25

The percentages of cases at the contracting officer and board levels involving the six provisions that most commonly result in disputes were:

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »