A contractor’s own terms and conditions infrequently appear in procurement contracts with the federal government. For the most part these contracts are “take it or leave it” propositions with the agency’s own terms and conditions defining the agreement of the parties. Recently, however in CSI Aviation, Inc. v. Department of Homeland Security, 31 F.4th 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2022), the U.S. Court of Appeals took the opportunity to address circumstances when a contractor’s standard terms and conditions may be incorporated by reference into a federal contract.
In this case, the contractor, CSI, brought an action against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and General Services Administration (GSA) seeking review of decisions of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, denying CSI’s requests for payment from DHS for $40,284,549 in flight cancellation charges it was allegedly owed under its schedule contract to provide air charter and auxiliary services. The contract at issue was a federal supply schedule contract which, compared to other procurement contracts, offers contractors greater opportunity to insert their own terms and conditions into the agreement.
Facts
CSI is a worldwide services broker that provides passenger and cargo air charter, aircraft leasing, and comprehensive aircraft management. It responded to a solicitation from the GSA seeking air charter services by means of a non-mandatory, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity multiple award schedule contract. CSI submitted a proposal to the GSA. This proposal included its commercial price list and the CSI Terms and Conditions. These terms and conditions contained a cancellation clause providing for payment to CSI of a 25% non-refundable cancellation charge applicable to flights cancelled less than 14 days prior to departure, and a 100% charge for flights cancelled thereafter.
Contracting Officer’s Decision
CSI was denied payment of invoices for flight cancellation charges. Accordingly, it submitted a certified claim to the agency. While the contracting officer found that the CSI terms and conditions were incorporated into the contract, the contracting officer further found that the charges were directly in conflict with FAR 52.212-4(l), Termination for the Government’s Convenience, a clause which is required in all GSA schedule contracts. The contracting officer explained that since the CSI terms and conditions “were an attachment to the contract buried within its 2008 offer submission,” the incorporated document “fall[s] to the eighth level ... when establishing precedence.” Thus, the contracting officer decided that the termination clause took precedence over CSI’s terms and conditions and denied the claim.
Rulings on Appeal
CSI appealed the contracting officer’s decision to the CBCA and the Board found, on summary judgment, that the schedule contract did not incorporate the CSI terms and conditions by reference. Next, CSI appealed the Board’s ruling to the Federal Circuit. The court defined the issue on appeal as a question of law as to whether the CSI terms and conditions are incorporated by reference into the schedule contract.
Before discussing the issue on appeal, the Federal Circuit provided a nutshell primer on the Federal Supply Schedule. Under this program, the GSA “acts as the contracting agent for the federal government” and negotiates “base contracts with suppliers of commercial products and services.” These schedule contracts streamline the acquisition process for federal agencies. Instead of “evaluating prices head to head ... in a competitive environment,” said the court, the GSA assesses pricing “as it relates to [the offeror’s] commercial selling practices.” An offeror submits a completed commercial sales practices sheet along with supporting documentation that discloses commercial pricing, market participants, sell price, and terms and conditions for the offeror’s “most favored customer” in a competitive environment. Relying on this information and in accordance with the FAR, a GSA contracting officer determines whether the pricing is “fair and reasonable” not as it relates to the competitive environment but “as it relates to [the offeror’s] commercial selling practices.”
The court defined incorporation by reference as providing a method for integrating material from various documents into a host document by citing such material in a manner that makes clear that the material is effectively part of the host document as if it were explicitly contained therein. To incorporate material by reference, “the incorporating contract must use language that is express and clear, so as to leave no ambiguity about the identity of the document being referenced, nor any reasonable doubt about the fact that the referenced document is being incorporated into the contract.” In other words, “the language used in a contract to incorporate extrinsic material by reference must explicitly, or at least precisely, identify the written material being incorporated and must clearly communicate that the purpose of the reference is to incorporate the referenced material into the contract (rather than merely to acknowledge that the referenced material is relevant to the contract, e.g., as background law or negotiating history).”
Turning to the facts of the case, the court said the proper inquiry is whether the schedule contract employs express and clear language, “so as to leave no ambiguity about the identity of the document being referenced, nor any reasonable doubt about the fact that the referenced document is being incorporated into the contract.” Applying this test, the court found that the subject contract, through the incorporated offer, unambiguously identifies the CSI terms and conditions and specifies that such terms and conditions will apply to all operations and therefore the contract incorporates these provisions by reference.
The court reversed the CBCA and sent the case back to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the ruling on appeal. The Federal Circuit further noted however, that it does not foreclose the possibility of the Board finding the CSI terms and conditions inapplicable for some other reason or that the cancellation provision is inconsistent with other provisions in the contract, such as the termination clause.
Lessons to be Learned
Contractors seeking to incorporate by reference their standard terms and conditions into a contract with the federal government ought to be aware of CSI Aviation v. DHS. This case offers at least two takeaways of importance. First, for an incorporation by reference of terms and conditions to be effective, the terms and conditions must be explicitly identified and the language used must clearly communicate that the purpose of the reference is to incorporate the referenced material as contractual provisions.
The second takeaway is that even if the contractor’s terms and conditions are successfully incorporated into a contract, these provisions may still be displaced by other contract provisions by the order of precedence clause. Before entering into the contract, the contractor ought to review for conflicting language the provisions granted greater precedence by the contract and/or negotiate for a higher order of precedence being conferred upon on its terms and conditions.
Tags: Government ContractsAbout This Blog
Lewis Roca is immersed in your industry and invested in your success. We share insights and trends that can affect your business.
Search
Topics
Archives
- September 2024
- August 2024
- May 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- September 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- November 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
Authors
- Alfredo T. Alonso
- Amy E. Altshuler
- Edwin A. Barkel
- Trevor G. Bartel
- Nick Bauman
- G. Warren Bleeker
- Brooks Brennan
- Ogonna M. Brown
- Chad S. Caby
- John Carson
- Rob Charles
- Joshua T. Chu
- Howard E. Cole
- Katherine Costella
- Thomas J. Daly
- Pat Derdenger
- Thomas J. Dougherty
- Susan M. Freeman
- Yalda Godusi Arellano
- Salma G. Granich
- John C. Gray, CIPP/US
- Art Hasan
- Frances J. Haynes
- Dietrich C. Hoefner
- Jennifer K. Hostetler
- David A. Jackson
- Andrew Jacobsohn
- Kyle W. Kellar
- Kris J. Kostolansky
- Gregory S. Lampert
- Shaun P. Lee
- Glenn J. Light
- Laura A. Lo Bianco
- Karen Jurichko Lowell
- James M. Lyons
- H. William Mahaffey
- Constantine Marantidis
- A.J. Martinez
- Patrick Emerson McCormick, CIPP/US
- Michael J. McCue
- Lindsay L. McKae
- Linda M. Mitchell
- Gary J. Nelson
- Rachel A. Nicholas
- Laura Pasqualone
- Michael D. Plachy
- David A. Plumley
- Kurt S. Prange
- Katie M. (Derrig) Rios
- Robert F. Roos
- Karl F. Rutledge
- Daniel A. Salgado
- Mary Ellen Simonson
- Susan Strebel Sperber
- Jan A. Steinhour
- Ryan M. Swank
- Dustin R. Szakalski
- Chris A. Underwood
- Jennifer A. Van Kirk
- Hilary D. Wells
- Drew Wilson, CIPP/US
- Karen L. Witt
- Meng Zhong
Recent Posts
- The Importance of Retaining a Grandfathered Gaming Location in Nevada
- Welcome our 2024 Michael D. Nosler Scholarship Intern
- Going Viral: Navigating Promotional Sweepstakes Legality in the Social Media Era
- Arizona Voters Modify Creditors' Remedies with Passage of Proposition 209
- Nevada Gaming Control Board Issues Gaming Technology Approval Guidelines
- Amendments to Nevada Gaming Regulation 5
- Nevada Gaming Control Board Workshop on Public Regulation
- New Wave of Arizona Privacy Litigation Regarding Tracking Pixels
- Legal Issues, Problems, and Unanswered Questions Regarding a State’s Ability and Potential Departure from the Depository Institution Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (“DIDMCA”)
- New Trademark Scam