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.
- Government Construction Contracts Require Bonds, Even When Contract Doesn’t Say So GalleryAmbiguity, Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA), Contract Interpretation, Court of Federal Claims, Government Contract, Terms and Conditions
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.
The Government’s negligent estimate failed to provide the “most current information available.”
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?
If all apples are fruit, then why are all fruit not apples?