The Court of Federal Claims recently reversed an agency’s default termination of a contractor that had experienced numerous performance issues and delays. The agency claimed that performance was “incurably behind schedule,” despite the contractor’s proposed recovery schedule. The court held that the agency lacked a reasonable belief that the contract could not be timely completed.Continue reading
Your newly awarded government contract requires you to move significant amounts of equipment prior to receiving a Notice to Proceed (NTP). You spend thousands of dollars moving equipment and people into place so you are ready to perform once the NTP is issued. But what if instead of issuing the NTP the agency cancels your contract? Are you out all of the costs incurred to prepare for the NTP?
Not necessarily. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals recently reviewed just this situation and awarded a significant amount to the contractor.Continue reading
An agency has broad discretion to terminate a contract for convenience. But sometimes, a contractor will challenge the termination for convenience by arguing that the agency acted in bad faith in terminating the contract.
A recent CBCA decision looks at what type of evidence is needed to establish bad faith. Not surprisingly, the CBCA confirms that the standard of proof is quite high.
Sometimes you may find yourself running late. It happens to the best of us for a multitude of reasons. But what happens to federal contractors when they are running late in performing under a contract and there is “no reasonable likelihood” of timely performance?
Unfortunately for contractors in this position, as illustrated by a recent Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) decision, the result may be a default termination.
A contractor could not file a valid bid protest challenging an agency’s decision to terminate the contractor’s task order, according to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
In a recent decision, the Court agreed with the GAO, which also held that the contractor’s challenge involved a matter of contract administration–something outside the bid protest process.
The government can terminate a contract when the Department of Labor has made a preliminary finding of non-compliance with the Service Contract Act, even if the contractor has not exhausted its remedies fighting or appealing the finding.
The 3-0 (unanimous) decision by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in Puget Sound Environmental Corp., ASBCA No. 58828 (July 12, 2016) is troubling because it could result in other contractors losing their contracts based on preliminary DOL findings–perhaps even if those preliminary findings are later overturned.
GAO’s bid protest jurisdiction is defined—and limited—by both statute and its regulations. As part of these jurisdictional limits, GAO ordinarily may only consider protests relating to task order procurements if those orders are valued in excess of $10 million.
But despite this rule, GAO recently considered a protester’s challenge to a task order valued at only $8.7 million. It did so after deciding that the challenge was “intertwined” with the protester’s challenge to its own termination for convenience–another matter the GAO only considers in unusual circumstances.