When a contractor delivers goods to the government that do not conform to the precise requirements of the contract, the results are usually . . . not good. When the agency specifies certain products in the contract, the contractor should plan to satisfy the exact specifications (or prepare to suffer the consequences).
ASBCA Offers Latest Reminder that Plain Language Controls Government Contract Interpretation
Two weeks ago, I presented on Common Issues in Government Contract Interpretation. The course examined common issues encountered by government contractors in bidding on and performing government contracts – as well as the dispute resolution process under the Contract Disputes Act.
One of the course’s major topics was the Plain Meaning Rule – the
Fox Speaks: Key Questions of Contract Interpretation in Government Contracts
Join me today, Monday July 15, 2019 at 3:00 p.m. (Eastern) for Lawline’s Live Course: KEY QUESTIONS OF CONTRACT INTERPRETATION IN GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
During the 90-minute course, I’ll cover the key principles of contract interpretation as they relate to government contracting. To take best take advantage our my limited time and maximize value for
REA and Claim Best Practices: Providing Notice of Differing Site Conditions
Recently on the blog, I covered one of the major risks encountered by construction contractors – subsurface or unexpected physical conditions discovered after the work begins (commonly known as Differing Site Conditions under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.236-2).
In that post, I explained that a government contractor that uncovers a Differing Site Condition on a
Contractors Need Not Wait To Pursue Delay Claims
Do contractors need to wait for a project to be complete to file a delay claim? The answer is a resounding NO! There is no reason for a contractor to finance a government-caused delay for any longer than absolutely necessary.
The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) recently drove this point home in CTA I,
New COFC Decision Highlights Danger of Contract Modifications on CDA Claims
The Contract Disputes Act (CDA) provides a remedy for contractors seeking to recover additional time or costs on a government contract (as part of a Claim or Request for Equitable Adjustment). But when the basis for recovery is tied up in a contract modification, contractors must beware the agency’s standard waiver language – or
Litigation Update: Contractor Not Entitled to Delay Costs Based on Access to Information Included in its Contract
Understanding claims under the Contract Disputes Act is an essential skill for government contractors. Claims (and related requests for equitable adjustment) are by far the most common remedy for contractors seeking to recover additional time and/or costs from the agency administering the contract.
Part of understanding the claims process is appreciating what kind of
CPARS Challenge Primer: Formal Claim Required to Appeal Negative Performance Evaluation
For federal contractors, it is not an exaggeration to say that performance evaluations are the lifeblood of the business. A less-than-satisfactory evaluation in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) affects far more than just the agency’s assessment of performance on a particular project. A negative evaluation follows a contractor around – impacting the ability
Contractor Alert: The Importance of Claim Certifications and Appeal Deadlines
Contractors seeking to recover additional time and/or costs on government contracts typically choose to proceed with either a Request for Equitable Adjustment (REA) or a Claim. These remedies fall under the general umbrella of the Disputes clause (FAR 52.233-1).
Often times, REAs and Claims can be a study in contrasts. From a procedural perspective,
Contractor Alert: Beware Non-Performance during Contract Disputes
Government contractors must be prepared to perform their Federal contracts – even in the face of a dispute with the government over essential contract terms. Failing to perform can have devastating consequences, including default termination.
In a recent case before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, the Board considered a U.S. Army Corps of