Remember the adage, “what you say today could bite you tomorrow.”
Recently, a Contractor won its argument before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) because the other party to the contract (the U.S. Army) prevented its own defense by insisting upon its own words and later trying to escape them.
Under a contract with the U.S. Army, Appellant/Contractor agreed to provide role-playing, human actors to help train soldiers to deal with civilians on a battlefield. Before the Army had issued the third of at least six task orders, the Contractor submitted a Request for Equitable Adjustment under Task Order No. 2.
In settling the Contractor’s Request for Equitable Adjustment, the Army drafted the language of a Contract Modification (Mod) stating “there are no further requests for equitable adjustments or claims to be submitted under this contract.” The Mod language was not limited to claims or requests by the Contractor. As such, the language included claims or requests by the Contractor AND the Army. This was the linchpin. Later, the Army lost its claim against the Contractor for damages related to Task Order No. 2 as the very language drafted by the Army in Mod 4 prevented the Army’s later claim.
Appeal of Supply & Service Team GmbH, ASBCA No. 59630, decided March 1, 2017.
Acceptance and Intervening Cause Avoided Construction Warranty Claim
Like cars, computers, and appliances, construction projects include warranties too. Similarly, construction project warranties are limited to causes within the contractor’s control […]
Insurance Company Had No Duty to Defend Under Eight Corners Rule
To decide if an insurer has a duty to defend, a Virginia State or Federal Court may only look at the allegations in the complaint and the insurance policy to determine if a judgment against the insured will be covered by the policy.
Owner SOL When Mandatory Mediation Didn’t Toll Statute of Limitations
Contract interpretation strives to find the meaning of all parts together.
Government Must Review Claims in Good Faith, Not “Conjure Up” a “Baseless Retaliation”
A contracting officer’s review of certified claims submitted in good faith is not intended to be a negotiating game where the agency may deny meritorious claims to gain leverage over the contractor.
Termination for Convenience was OK to Get a Lower Price
When Massachusetts’ highest State court rejected Federal law on termination for convenience (T4C) a public entity’s “sole discretion . . . for […]
Pirates (Parties) Should Arbitrate Arbitrability
Yes, the word “pirates” is an anagram for “parties.” Participants in a lawsuit, arbitration, or mediation are collectively referred to as parties. Are they pirates too?
Very Bad Behavior Without Bad Faith is Not a Breach of Contract
Despite “abhorrent” behavior by the Army Corps of Engineers, a majority of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals held there was […]
Government Construction Contracts Require Bonds, Even When Contract Doesn’t Say So
Yesterday (Nov. 5, 2018), the Fed. Cir. Ct. of Appeals again endorsed the Christian doctrine, which can make unstated requirements part of a government contract.
Government’s Negligent Estimate a Trick?
The Government’s negligent estimate failed to provide the “most current information available.”
