Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

Terminations for convenience clauses vs. mutual termination clauses

By

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

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

By

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/

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

By

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.

Contracting News

Read More

Contracting Tips

Read More

GTPAC News

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Read More