A contractor’s request that the agency issue a “no-cost” cancellation of its contract was not a default–and did not justify the government’s default termination of the contract.
In a recent decision, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals held that a contractor did not repudiate its contract by requesting a cancellation because the contractor’s request was not a “positive, definite, unconditional, and unequivocal refusal to perform.”
A request for equitable adjustment is not a “claim” under the FAR. Although a REA and a claim can look very similar, there are important legal distinctions.
And as one contractor recently learned, the distinction between a REA and a claim can make all the difference when it comes to a potential appeal.
A construction contractor was unable to recover the costs of performing changed work allegedly ordered by the government’s project engineers because the engineers did not have authority to modify the contract.
As demonstrated in a recent Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals decision, only a contracting officer or the contracting officer’s designated representatives may modify a contract, and a contractor bears the risk of non-payment by performing changed work directed by an unauthorized government employee.
A former employee could not represent a contractor in an appeal filed with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, even though the contractor’s owner had asked the former employee to serve as its representative.
In a recent decision, the ASBCA reiterated that, under its rules, a corporation must be represented by an officer or an attorney. A former employee does not qualify.
For an invoice to be considered a claim under the Contract Disputes Act, thereby giving the U.S. Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to consider an appeal of the government’s failure to pay, the contractor must establish that the invoice was in dispute at the time it was submitted to the government.
As demonstrated in a recent Court decision, ordinary, undisputed invoices are not “claims” under the Contract Disputes Act.
A Contracting Officer’s death did not waive the requirement that a contractor file a claim with the agency before bringing its claim to federal court.
In a recent decision, the Court of Federal Claims held that a contractor was not entitled to forego the claim requirement because of the Contracting Officer’s death–even though the agency did not appoint a replacement.
A contractor’s failure to follow the requirements of DFARS 252.232-7007 (Limitation of Government’s Obligation), also known as the “LOGO” clause, resulted in the contractor performing more than $288,000 in free work for the government.
The contractor’s dilemma is an important reminder to be aware of–and scrupulously comply with–the LOGO clause and similar FAR clauses.