Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Training
    • Class Registration
    • On-demand Training
    • GTPAC COVID-19 Resource Page
    • Veterans Verification Video
    • Other Training Audio & Video
  • Useful Links
  • Team Directory
    • Albany Counselor
    • Atlanta Counselors
    • Augusta Counselor
    • Carrollton Counselor
    • Columbus Counselor
    • Gainesville Counselor
    • Savannah Counselor
    • Warner Robins Counselor
  • Directions
    • Atlanta – Training Facility
    • Atlanta – Office
    • Albany
    • Augusta
    • Carrollton
    • Columbus
    • Gainesville
    • Savannah
    • Warner Robins
  • COVID-19
  • New Client Application
  • Contact Us

Terminations for convenience clauses vs. mutual termination clauses

October 27, 2021 By Andrew Smith

Imagine as a supplier of medical oxygen cylinders and tanks in your region, you enter into an arrangement with HHS or DHS to provide oxygen to nearby hospital facilities dealing with surges in the COVID-19 pandemic.  However, due to the recent dramatic surge in your area and the significant demand for oxygen, the government moved quickly to award you a contract that appears very different from other federal contracts you have previously signed.

For example, instead of containing a standard FAR clause for Terminations for Convenience, your contract has a clause that states “this contract may be terminated in whole or in part by either party upon thirty (30) days notice in writing to the other party.”  Is this mutual termination clause treated any differently under the law? Would you still get the same protection if the government decided to cancel your contract to obtain better prices a week later from your competitor across town?

Unfortunately, the answers to these questions are murky at best.  But contractors should be aware that there could be a difference between these two types of clauses and to not instantly assume that they will be treated similarly should a claim arise.

Continue reading at:  The Contractor’s Perspective

Filed Under: Contracting Tips Tagged With: mutual termination clause, termination for convenience

Subcontractor who failed to follow the FAR finds that ‘fair’ and ‘just’ are not synonymous

April 12, 2019 By Andrew Smith

Inscribed over the doors of the U.S. Supreme Court are the words “Equal Justice Under Law.” It’s a reminder that judicial decisions should be just. That doesn’t necessarily mean fair.

In Aspic Engineering and Construction Company v. ECC Centcom Constructors, LLC, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, Case No. 17-16510 (January 28, 2019), the 9th Circuit overturned an arbitration decision in favor of a local Afghani subcontractor seeking termination costs after it was terminated for convenience by a U.S.-based general contractor.  This, despite the arbitrator’s finding that the subcontract was “clearly drafted to give every advantage to” the general contractor, that the local Afghani subcontractor’s “experience with government contracting [was] not nearly as extensive as that of” the general contractor, and “that the normal business practices and customs of subcontractors in Afghanistan were more ‘primitive’ than those of U.S. subcontractors experienced with U.S. Government work.”

Background

Local Afghani subcontractor Aspic Engineering and Construction Company was awarded two subcontracts by ECC Centcom Constructors, the general contractor, on two projects in Afghanistan overseen by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The first subcontract involved construction of various buildings in the Badghis province of Afghanistan.  The second subcontract involved the construction various buildings Sheberghan province of Afghanistan.  Both subcontracts included clauses from the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), which were incorporated by reference, and included flow-down provisions obligating Aspic to ECC in the same manner that ECC was obligated to the U.S. government.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/federal-subcontractor-who-failed-to-43185/

Filed Under: Contracting Tips Tagged With: ACE, actual cost, Afghanistan, Army Corps of Engineers, Court of Appeals, FAR, flow down clause, subcontracting, Supreme Court, termination for convenience, U.S. Court of Appeals

Arbitration award is ‘irrational’ because it disregards contract’s plain text

March 8, 2019 By Andrew Smith

Aspic Engineering and Construction Company (Aspic), a local Afghan subcontractor, entered into multiple subcontracts with ECC Centcom Constructors and ECC International (ECC), the prime contractor, to construct buildings and facilities in Afghanistan.  The subcontracts contained terms and conditions “applicable to all U.S. Government subcontracts,” and mandated that Aspic owed ECC the same obligations that ECC owed to the federal government.  The subcontracts also incorporated multiple Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clauses, including FAR 49.2 through 49.6, which govern the recovery of expenses in the event a contractor is terminated for convenience, i.e., required documentation and procedures.

In 2014, ECC was terminated for convenience, so ECC notified Aspic that it also intended to terminate Aspic’s subcontracts for convenience.  Aspic, in turn, submitted multiple settlement proposals to get paid for its work under the subcontracts.  When ECC denied most of Aspic’s proposals, Aspic filed for arbitration, seeking payment for its costs of partially performing under the subcontracts.  Despite Aspic’s failure to comply with the FAR requirements governing payment for partial work in the event of a termination for convenience, the arbitrator awarded Aspic over $1 million.  The arbitrator concluded that Aspic was not required to strictly comply with the FAR requirements based on several factors, including: (i) the subcontracts were drafted to give every advantage to ECC; (ii) it was not reasonable to expect that Afghan subcontractors would be able to conform to the strict and detailed requirements of general contractors on U.S. Federal projects; (iii) it was not reasonable that the parties had the same expectations; and (iv) there was not a true meeting of the minds.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ninth-circuit-finds-arbitration-award-25846/

To view the full text of the court’s decision, courtesy of Bloomberg, click here.

Filed Under: Contracting News Tagged With: arbitration, contract clauses, FAR, flow down clause, meeting of the minds, subcontracting, termination for convenience

Recent Posts

  • OMB releases guidance related to small business goals
  • Are verbal agreements good enough for government contractors?
  • OMB issues guidance on impact of injunction on government contractor vaccine mandate
  • CMMC 2.0 simplifies requirements but raises risks for government contractors
  • OFCCP launches contractor portal initiating AAP verification program

Popular Topics

8(a) abuse Army bid protest budget budget cuts certification construction contract awards contracting opportunities cybersecurity DoD DOJ False Claims Act FAR federal contracting federal contracts fraud GAO Georgia Tech government contracting government contract training government trends GSA GSA Schedule GTPAC HUBZone innovation IT Justice Dept. marketing NDAA OMB SBA SDVOSB set-aside small business small business goals spending subcontracting technology VA veteran owned business VOSB wosb

Contracting News

OMB releases guidance related to small business goals

OMB issues guidance on impact of injunction on government contractor vaccine mandate

Changes coming to DOD’s Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification under CMMC 2.0

Judge issues nationwide injunction halting enforcement of COVID-19 vaccine mandate

Nondisplacement of qualified workers is back, but with changes

Read More

Contracting Tips

Are verbal agreements good enough for government contractors?

CMMC 2.0 simplifies requirements but raises risks for government contractors

OFCCP launches contractor portal initiating AAP verification program

GAO rules that DoD may not require small business Joint Venture itself hold facility security clearance

Terminations for convenience clauses vs. mutual termination clauses

Read More

GTPAC News

VA direct access program events in 2022

Sandia National Laboratories seeks small business suppliers

Navy OSBP hosting DCAA overview (part 2) event Jan. 12, 2022

Navy OSBP hosting cybersecurity “ask me anything” event Dec. 16th

State of Georgia hosting supplier systems training on January 26, 2022

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Undergraduate enrollment growth reflects inclusive excellence

Georgia Tech delivers $4 billion in economic impact to the State of Georgia

Georgia Tech awards first round of seed grants to support team-based research

Georgia Tech announces inaugural Associate Vice President of Corporate Engagement

DoD funds Georgia Tech to enhance U.S. hypersonics capabilities

Read More

  • SAM.gov registration is free, and help with SAM is free, too
APTAC RSS Twitter GTPAC - 30th Year of Service

Copyright © 2022 · Georgia Tech - Enterprise Innovation Institute