(a) A quotation is not an offer and, consequently, cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. Therefore, issuance by the Government of an order in response to a supplier's quotation does not establish a contract. The order is an offer by the Government to the supplier to buy certain supplies or services upon specified terms and conditions. A contract is established when the supplier accepts the offer.
(b) When appropriate, the contracting officer may ask the supplier to indicate acceptance of an order by notification to the Government, preferably in writing, as defined at 2.101. In other circumstances, the supplier may indicate acceptance by furnishing the supplies or services ordered or by proceeding with the work to the point where substantial performance has occurred.
(c) If the Government issues an order resulting from a quotation, the Government may (by written notice to the supplier, at any time before acceptance occurs) withdraw, amend, or cancel its offer. (See 13.302-4 for procedures on termination or cancellation of purchase orders.)
Notes of Decisions
ICP Nw., LLC v. United States, 98 Fed. Cl. 29 (Fed. Cl. 2011).
· cites it 3× “2006); see also 48 C.F.R. § 13.004 (a) (2010). Rather, the BPAs at issue are agreements that set forth the terms and conditions of future contracts that are formed once the Government places an order and the holder of the BPA accepts.”
Ulysses, Inc. v. United States, 110 Fed. Cl. 618 (Fed. Cl. 2013).
“§§ 604 and 605; Request for Quotation; Approved Source; 48 C.F.R. § 13.004 ; Termination for Convenience, FAR 52.”
Smart Bus. Machines v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 706 (Fed. Cl. 2006).
· cites it 2× “SBM Did Not Provide “Substantial Performance” Within the Meaning of 48 C.F.R. § 13.004 (b). To the extent that SBM’s complaint can be read to state that SBM’s “performance” established a contract with the government, that claim also fails.”
Bio-Med. Applications of Aquadilla, Inc. v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 546 (Fed. Cl. 2014).
“48 C.F.R. § 13.004 (a). It is difficult to understand how the government wishes the court to apply this regulation to the beneficiary authorizations and payments for dialysis services at issue in this case, because the government has identified no “quotations” that triggered the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.