United States Court of Appeals

Case: 09-2280 Document: 39 Date Filed: 07/01/2010 Page: 39
All delivery orders or task orders are subject to the terms and
conditions of this contract. In the event of conflict between a
delivery order or task order and this contract, the contract shall
control.
(J.A. 1290 [emphasis added]). 6
In sum, GSA MAS contractors and ordering agencies, such as NGB,
definitively may not vary the terms of their MAS contract, and IIF was not free to
charge personnel under labor categories and at prices for which the personnel did
not qualify. Decisions of the GAO confirm this clear rule. For example in Perot
Systems Government Services, Inc., B-402138, 2010 CPD 64, 2010 WL 884032
(Jan. 21, 2010), the ordering agency (the Veterans Administration) solicited offers
for an order for IT labor to be acquired under an IT MAS contract. When GSA
MAS contractor Perot proposed IT labor category rates that varied from the rates in
its GSA MAS IT contract, the GAO ruled that Perot’s bid for the Veteran’s
Administration order properly was rejected, because:
Perot quoted prices that were not on its current MAS contract and
thus were neither published nor determined to be fair and
reasonable by GSA. This being the case, Perot’s quotation was
inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the RFQ [Request for
Quotation] and MAS regulations, and therefore unacceptable. Thus,
GSA properly eliminated it from consideration.
Id. at *3 (emphasis added).
6 The United States reiterated this core element of the GSA’s MAS program in
United States ex rel. Norman Rille and Neal Roberts v. EMC Corporation, No.
1:09-cv-00628-GBL-TRJ, U.S. First Am. Compl. in Intervention 17. (J.A.
1541).
28