When Massachusetts’ highest State court rejected Federal law on termination for convenience (T4C) a public entity’s “sole discretion . . . for any reason” ended a supplier’s contract. Is this too much governmental power or good stewardship of public resources?
Under a public contract, a Supplier agreed to provide fuel to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. About eleven months into the two-year contract, the Authority terminated the contract because it could get the same fuel for a cheaper price from a different supplier.
Upon 30-days written notice, termination by the Authority was within its “sole discretion . . . for any reason.” The terminated party was expressly entitled to payment for: demobilization, contract closeout, and costs of and profit on work performed.
The Massachusetts State Supreme Judicial Court held the termination was proper and made several points:
- Federal law on termination for convenience was not binding on the Commonwealth;
- General principles of contract interpretation under State law applied;
- The termination language was unambiguous and broad; and
- The requirement for pre-termination written notice was enough consideration for a contract.
The Court expressly stated it was not deciding whether a T4C would be proper to rebid the contract in search of a lower price. But, the roadmap of this decision would make it easy for a Court to find even such a T4C was OK.
Navigating the Requirements for Claims against Virginia Public Entities
Contractors making claims against Virginia public entities must follow ALL applicable requirements. Such requirements may be found in several places, so check […]
Virginia General Contractors Not Protected from Pre-Work Claim Waivers
On March 2, 2018, the Governor approved an act of the Virginia General Assembly to make unenforceable pre-work waivers of lien rights […]
Adding Terms to a Government Contract without Saying So
Imagine an incredulous Contractor asking, “Show me in the Contract where it says I’m supposed to do X?” The Government Contracting Officer smugly answers, “even though the Contract doesn’t say so, you must do it anyway.” Is that even possible, when, how?
Differing Site Conditions: When the Part Does Not Equal the Whole
If all apples are fruit, then why are all fruit not apples?
Forum Selection Can Be a Home-Court Advantage
I promise that any disputes between us will be argued at your house. Time passes and a dispute begins to brew. Now, I want to argue at my house, not at yours. You pay costs to argue at my house that you wouldn’t have incurred had I done as agreed. Should I have to reimburse your costs?
No-Damage-for-Delay and Owner-Related Dispute Clauses are No Defense to Surety Liability Under Miller Act
Prime Government Contractors - you may need to update your interim payment waivers.
Contractual Fairness is Whatever the Parties’ Agreed
When you know a current action or inaction is wrong, but you do not object, should you be allowed to object later?
Which Comes First – Specifications or Drawings?
Sometimes it's not better to ask for forgiveness after-the-fact.
Government Contract Claims: When Appeal is Rejection of Settlement
Without a reservation of rights, appealing a Contracting Officer’s Final Decision is a rejection of any offer of payment or settlement included therein. So, the contractor had only three options.
