Tag Archives: ASBCA decisions

Nonmanufacturer Rule Violation Leads To Default Termination

Posted on by

A procuring agency appropriately terminated a small business set-aside contract for default when the SBA determined, after contract award, that the prime contractor was not complying with the nonmanufacturer rule.

A recent decision of the Armed Service Board of Contract Appeals involved a very interesting factual situation, in which the small business in question told the SBA that it planned to perform the contract in compliance with the nonmanufacturer rule, but then failed to do so.  This failure, according to the ASBCA, justified a default termination.

Continue reading →

ASBCA: No Valid Subcontractor Claim Against Government

Posted on by

I sometimes suggest that a government subcontract include a so-called “pass-through” dispute resolution provision, in which the prime contractor agrees to sponsor its subcontractor’s claims against the government.  A recent Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals case demonstrates why pass-through provisions can be so important.

In its decision, the ASBCA held that a subcontractor lacked a valid claim against the government–and therefore, had no ability to pursue relief at the ASBCA.

Continue reading →

ASBCA: Contractor’s Request For Cancellation Was Not A Default

Posted on by

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.”

Continue reading →

Government’s Engineers Couldn’t Modify Contract, Says ASBCA

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

ASBCA Appeals: Former Employee Could Not Represent Contractor

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

DFARS Clause Problem Costs Contractor $288K

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Government Rejects Contractor’s Bills for Flowers, Hunting Club, Jazz

Posted on by

Roses are red, violets are blue–and a government contractor can’t bill Uncle Sam for either one, according to a recent decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals.

In Thomas Associates, Inc., ASBCA No. 57795 (2012), the ASBCA rejected a contractor’s claim that it was entitled to stick the government with a variety of costs I will charitably describe as “questionable,” including a hunting club membership, jazz ensemble, a lavish Christmas party, and yes, flowers given to employees, ostensibly to boost morale.

Continue reading →