Scenario 4.0: 2 - "The Requirements of a Requirements Contract"
In 2019, the buyer awarded National Concrete Supply (NCS) the first of three consecutive contracts for concrete placement, asphalt surface treatments, and pavement markings at one of its facilities. The first one- year contract had an option to extend performance through April 30, 2022. The 2020 contract was a
"requirements type contract to be ordered on individual delivery orders." The scope of the contract required NCS to furnish all labor, materials, equipment, transportation, traffic control, and supervision for construction and repair services. The contract provided that services for concrete work would "include, but not be limited to" base course restoration, crack repair, joint repair, concrete headwalls, complete restoration, concrete curb and gutter, concrete porches, steps, and patios, slab jacking, concrete sidewalks, rapid-set concrete repair, culverts and drainage structures, repair or construction of roads, airfield surfaces, walkways, retaining walls, parking lots, and concrete footings.
The buyer reserved the right "to have work falling within the scope of the contract performed by in-house personnel, job order contracting, or by another contract where concrete placement, asphalt surface treatment, or pavement marking is incidental to other work." The 2020 contract also included clauses stating, among other things, that this was a requirements contract and that the estimated quantities were not the buyer's total requirements, but only estimates of requirements exceeding quantities the buyer might furnish within its own capabilities.

Following expiration of the 2020 contract, the buyer entered into additional one-year contracts in 2022 and
2023. Based on the comparison table provided, the key changes were:
* 2022: Added revisions to site work associated with the placement of concrete or asphalt; added a definition of "incident" as work in, on, and up to a perimeter of 5 feet around the structure or item to complete work if its origin is within that 5-foot perimeter; no change to contract description; no change to the clause stating the contract was a requirements-type contract.
* 2023: Added items NCS would furnish, including engineering/layout, preparing subgrade to receive compacted crushed stone base, and clear and grubbing; deleted the line reserving the buyer's right to have certain work performed by in-house personnel, job order contracting, or another contract where concrete placement, asphalt surface treatment, or pavement marking was incidental to other work; updated the contract description to state the contract was a "requirements type contract for construction
/repair of asphalt pavement, concrete pavement, pavement markings, and site preparation"; and replaced the clause with one stating that the estimated quantities set forth in the 2023 contract, and the buyer's obligation to order under the 2023 contract, excluded work that the buyer itself would perform.
NCS claimed that during performance of the 2020, 2022, and 2023 contracts, the buyer diverted substantial portions of work within the scope sections to other contractors and claimed lost profits under each contract.
Question:
When interpreting the contract, which of the following guidelines for contract interpretation should the court have relied on?

• A. Applying the "Doctrine of Contra Proferentem."
• B. Applying the "Parol Evidence" rule.
• C. Reading the contract as a whole.
• D. Prioritizing the contract clauses over the schedule.

Scenario 5.0: 1
Offeror C contested the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under a request for proposals (RFP) issued by the buyer for "aircraft logistics, integration, configuration management, and engineering" (ALICE) services. The seller would provide personnel to work at a buyer's location, and the buyer would direct all work and "establish work hours consistent with meeting the mission at each contract location." The RFP provided an estimated level of effort, and offerors completed a pricing model spreadsheet.
Proposals were to be evaluated on mission suitability, past performance, and cost/price. The mission suitability and past performance factors were approximately equal in importance, and each was more important than cost/price. The purpose of the mission suitability factor was to determine the offeror's ability to provide the required personnel at the required work hours to fulfill the contract need. It included several subfactors: management approach, overall management approach, staffing approach, and contract phase-in approach.
Offeror C argued that the buyer unfairly assessed a management approach weakness for failing to show a plan for complying with required work schedules and break times, failing to consider that the buyer establishes work hours consistent with mission needs, and failing to consider the buyer's intention to have night shift work on Sundays. Offeror C's proposal had discussed its approach to managing scheduling and breaks and stated that it would comply with collective bargaining agreement requirements. The buyer nevertheless judged the approach inadequate because it did not explain how Offeror C would enforce worker compliance, comparing the plan to a highway speed-limit sign that does not ensure motorists will not speed. GAO found that the RFP required offerors to explain their approaches to ensuring flexible scheduling and required breaks, but did not reasonably disclose that offerors also had to propose an enforcement mechanism.
Question:
Should Offeror B, whose cost was the lowest of the three offerors, have been awarded the contract?

• A. Not necessarily, because "cost" is not considered an evaluation factor unless the difference between each offer is determined to be "significant."
• B. Not necessarily, because "cost/price" was not weighted as heavily as "mission suitability" and "past performance" in the evaluation.
• C. Yes, because the low cost justifies the deficiencies in "mission suitability" and "past performance."
• D. Yes, because the lowest-cost proposal should always be accepted when using negotiated source selection.

In a fixed-price contract, delivery of anything less than the agreed-upon item __________.

• A. fails to satisfy the terms of the contract
• B. fails to provide sufficient funding to the seller
• C. entitles the seller to a price redetermination
• D. entitles the buyer to compensation

Scenario 4.0:
The buyer intended to change the pricing structure for a contract for garbage collection services at one of its facilities. Previously, the contract included contract line items priced on a "per-ton" basis, along with overhead line items covering the contractor's variable costs. The buyer intended to issue a solicitation that eliminated the overhead line items, thus requiring all costs to be included in a "price-per-ton" pricing method.
Prior to issuing a solicitation, the buyer conducted market research to determine whether it was customary industry practice to price garbage collection services based on the weight of the garbage collected. This market research included three parts:
* Reviewing refuse contracts at three other locations;
* Posting a notice to potential sellers asking for feedback on the proposed structure, to which the buyer received seven responses-four of which suggested a monthly line-item structure, which would include variable costs and not be on a "per-ton" basis, since these four respondents indicated that a "per-ton" pricing structure was not a "customary commercial practice," and three had no comment about the line-item structure; and
* Obtaining "historical market research" that had been performed during the previous year by personnel at another buyer location, consisting of talking to a sales representative from a waste removal company who indicated that his company used a "per-ton" pricing structure that was a "practical method of pricing for trash removal services." Following this market research, the buyer determined that it was "in the buyer's best interest" to utilize the
"per-ton" approach and that it was a "customary commercial practice."
A solicitation was issued requiring offerors to submit fixed prices on a per-ton basis for several line items, for which the solicitation provided estimated quantities. The buyer removed the line items for overhead costs that had been present in the prior contract for waste removal. Instead, the new solicitation required offerors to submit prices that reflected "all fixed and variable costs" on a per-ton basis and only permitted the seller "to invoice on tonnage collected." The resulting statement of work indicated that the seller was required to provide all items necessary to perform the required services, including personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities, materials, and supervision.
Question:
In this scenario, what type of contract was issued originally by the buyer?

• A. Cost-plus-fixed-fee
• B. Fixed price, requirements
• C. Fixed price, indefinite delivery
• D. Cost reimbursement, indefinite delivery

__________ is the measure of the probability of an event (a positive desired change) occurring and the desired impact of that event.

• A. Opportunity
• B. Performance
• C. Contingency
• D. Risk