Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Retreadfed

Members
  • Content Count

    2,229
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Retreadfed

  • Rank
    Contributing Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

19,744 profile views
  1. Why would 252.242-7006 not apply? It's use is not dependent on the contract being subject to the CAS.
  2. I accept. Like a lot of the FAR, this is clear as mud but it covers the ground.
  3. Bob, why does GAO consider directions from committee reports to be mandates to GAO while it considers such directions to be non-binding on agencies?
  4. Interesting. It seems like the CASB took the position that the issue is too hard for it to figure out so it punted to the FAR Councils.
  5. To properly apply a regulation to a set of facts, you need to understand what it means. Once you understand what it means, you can determine if it applies to the facts at hand. Thus, the issue is what does 1.108(c) mean and how is it to be applied, e.g., to IDIQ contracts, multiple award IDIQ contracts, requirements contracts, contingent contracts.
  6. I would add that the purpose of breach damages is to put the non-breaching party in as good a position as it would have been had the contract been completed as written. Therefore, if the non-breaching party incurred additional costs to have the contract completed, it could recover those costs.
  7. I'm not sure on the point you raised, but I do think it was Boeing that raised an issue concerning something similar with the court holding that the FAR Councils could adopt rules that they had not promulgated such as the CAS.
  8. Those may be indicators to you. However, I know that in informal presentations, experienced government contract attorneys in private practice have raised concerns over the application of 1.108(c). Thus, I am not alone.
  9. I generally agree with ji here. In this regard, obligations may be definite or contingent. For example, under an FFP contract for supplies, the contractor must deliver conforming supplies. When it does and the government accepts those supplies, theoretically the contractor has fulfilled its obligations. However, there may be warranty issues that arise later or the government way later wish to revoke acceptance under the Inspection clause due to a latent defect that was discovered years later thus requiring the contractor to correct the defect. Therefore, it is hard to say when a contract really "ends."
  10. Don, can you expand on this? I think I know where you are going, but I want to make sure.
  11. A couple of definitional issues are what does "anticipated" mean in this context? We also don't know whose anticipation is to be considered. Also, 1.108(c) refers to supplies or services "to be acquired." In an IDIQ contract we know the minimum amount that is to be acquired, but we do not know the maximum amount to be acquired. Instead, we know the maximum that may be required. Further, although we have been talking about IDIQ contracts, this section would also apply to requirements contracts. There we have estimates with no promise of the government buying anything.
  12. I disagree. It only indicates that the issue has not been litigated, just as the issue of what is a contract for the acquisition of commercial items has not been litigated in regard to CAS coverage. The passage of time does without litigation does not indicate that the language of a regulation, or statute is clear. For example, the second amendment to the constitution had been in existence for over 200 years before the Supreme Court held that it conveyed an individual right to own firearms.
  13. What marketplace, the marketplace of government contracting or the commercial marketplace? 52.212-4 says remedies available at law. Thus, the question is what remedies are available at law for buyer to exercise against a contractor that is terminated for cause. Therefore, my question is simply is what legal remedy allows a buyer to recover reprocurement costs from a seller that has been terminated for cause.
  14. Since my question was directed at rios, I wish he would chime in as to what theory he would use to recover reprocurement costs as he brought it up.
×
×
  • Create New...