DAWIA Contracting common mistakes
DAWIA Contracting · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Picks the contract type from habit ("we always use firm-fixed-price") without writing down which cost or performance risks are being transferred and to whom.
Memorizing the line "FFP is preferred" (FAR 16.101(b)) is easier than internalizing the factor-by-factor comparison in FAR 16.104, so candidates skip the reasoning step under time pressure.
What to do instead
Practice a three-step drill on every scenario: (1) name the technical, cost, and schedule uncertainty; (2) name which party can best manage each risk; (3) match that profile to a contract-type family, then state the FAR 16.104 factors that support it. The written rationale is the answer, not the label.
Runs market research after the acquisition strategy and contract type are already locked in, and reduces it to a brand-name justification when a sole-source is intended.
Market research is treated as a documentation checkbox rather than the input that drives the strategy; candidates also conflate the brand-name/limited-sources justification (FAR 6.302-1(c)) with a full J&A.
What to do instead
Sequence it correctly: market research first, then strategy, then contract type, then competition approach. Memorize the distinct purposes of the limited-sources justification versus the J&A, and be able to state the market research outcomes that change the strategy.
Rejects or downgrades an otherwise conforming offer because the firm has weak past performance, or accepts a nonconforming offer because the firm is highly capable.
Responsibility and responsiveness are both pass/fail screens applied at roughly the same point in the process, and both use the word "qualified" in casual speech, so they blur together.
What to do instead
Use a two-question test in order: (1) Does the offer conform to the material terms of the solicitation? (responsiveness - a property of the offer). (2) Is this firm capable, adequate, and willing? (responsibility - a property of the firm, FAR 9.1, determined by the CO). Past performance is generally responsibility, not responsiveness.
Accepts a late proposal because the offeror says the courier or email system failed, applying the late-bid logic used in sealed bidding to a negotiated acquisition (or vice versa).
FAR 14.304 and FAR 15.208 both govern late submissions but have different mechanics and narrow, specific exceptions that candidates memorize as one blurry rule.
What to do instead
Build a two-column comparison of FAR 14.304 versus FAR 15.208, listing the exact exceptions (government mishandling or delay, and the electronic-submission rules). When answering, first identify the procedure, then apply only that rule set.
Calls a cost allowable just because the contractor incurred it and it falls within a cost-reimbursement line item.
Allowability, allocability, and reasonableness are taught together and collapse into a single intuition; candidates forget that allowability is a separate gate that contract terms and FAR 31.205 can override.
What to do instead
Run the FAR 31.201-2 test explicitly and in order - reasonableness, allocability, GAAP, contract terms, and the limitations in FAR Part 31 - then scan FAR 31.205 for a selected-cost exclusion. State which prong fails, not just "unallowable."
Builds an equitable adjustment or a negotiated price by adding a flat profit percentage across the whole bottom line, including materials and subcontract pass-throughs.
Candidates default to commercial markup arithmetic instead of the cost-based structure (direct costs, indirect costs applied to their proper bases, then profit on the appropriate elements).
What to do instead
Drill the build-up as separate layers: direct costs by element, indirect rates against their correct bases, then profit as a weighted objective rather than a formula. Flag material and subcontract dollars as a limited profit base, and never apply profit to profit.
Accepts direction to the contractor from a COR, program manager, or inspector as binding, and later tells the contractor there is no basis for adjustment.
Authority is confused with knowledge - the person who knows the most about the requirement is assumed to be able to bind the government, and the Changes clause is read as covering only written CO modifications.
What to do instead
Test every direction twice: does it fall inside the scope of the Changes clause, and did it come from someone with authority? A direction outside the contract from an unauthorized person can still be a constructive change or an unauthorized commitment requiring ratification.
Treats termination for convenience and termination for default as producing similar recoveries, or assumes a defective default automatically becomes a convenience termination once the contractor shows an excusable delay.
The remedies are asymmetric and the conversion is a CO decision, not an automatic operation of law; candidates study the two clauses separately and never contrast them.
What to do instead
Maintain a side-by-side chart: T4D gives no profit on uncompleted work and exposes the contractor to excess reprocurement costs; T4C gives profit on work done plus settlement expenses. Then note that conversion to T4C is a CO determination that must be documented, and that the excusable-delay analysis comes first.
Treats orders under a multiple-award IDIQ as requiring a fresh full-and-open competition under FAR Part 15 instead of applying fair opportunity under FAR 16.505.
The multiple-award vehicle and the standard competitive procedure look alike on the surface, and the exceptions to fair opportunity are a short list that is easy to skip over.
What to do instead
Anchor on the rule: orders exceeding the micro-purchase threshold require fair opportunity among the awardees, with a defined list of exceptions (urgency, only one capable, logical follow-on, etc.) that must be documented. Practice sorting a scenario into "fair opportunity" versus "exception" before writing anything else.
Treats an option as something the contractor can insist on, or exercises it after the option period has expired or without confirming funds are available.
Options are casually described as "renewals," which imports a bilateral, mutual-consent intuition that contradicts the unilateral nature of an option under FAR 17.2.
What to do instead
State the three-part test before choosing an answer: the option is unilateral, it must be exercised strictly within its terms and before expiration, and the CO must have funds and complete any required determination and notice. If any element fails, the option is not exercisable.