Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

jwomack

Members
  • Content Count

    252
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About jwomack

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

9,869 profile views
  1. The Government can unilaterally establish a new delivery date, and the contractor is bound to that date, even when the contract doesn't allow for such changes? That's a new one. Good luck with enforcement.
  2. Outside the FAR and in the realm of common law? How is this possible? Aren't FAR-bound executive agencies bound by the FAR? Is there some exemption from this?
  3. Any unilateral change to the POP would be considered a government offer. If the KTR rejected the offer then T4D based on the contractually established POP would be appropriate and allowable.
  4. Companies consider potential impact on their bottom dollar. Period. Riskier candidates could mean delayed revenue and possible contract default. Is the risk worth the reward? Most for profit companies, if not all, couldn’t care less how much it costs the Government to run a background check.
  5. The contract must be read as a whole. Ignoring a stated POP would not be proper. A mod would be necessary.
  6. The CO may be able to replace the funds. Any contract mod to extend the POP should be based on this which may mean caveating the extension with "funds are not presently available beyond xx/xx/xx".
  7. A slightly different perspective. In my experience, good P/PMs are the key to a contract’s success. In the absence of good P/PMs, the CO is the key. There aren’t many good P/PMs. Good = knowing how to define the government’s need. And knowing how to select, interact with, and manage the contractors.
  8. Not that taking possession is a sole determining factor, but the Government is taking possession. How else could it be used? Also, I would ask the GPC coordinator what labor category / wage rate this "SCA" acquisition falls under. Then I'd ask how they came to their answer.
  9. You cannot "exercise an option that is not in strict compliance with the terms of the contract". It's impossible and contradictory to the definition of what exercising an option means. See the Lockheed and Alliant citations provided above.
  10. Lockheed Martin IR Imaging Sys., Inc. v. West, 108 F.3d at 323 “option exercise must be unconditional and in exact accord with terms of contract being renewed” Alliant Techsystems, Inc. v. United States, 178 F.3d 1260, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 1999) “attempt to exercise an option outside its terms does not constitute a valid exercise of option”) Black’s Law 10th. Breach of contract. “Violation of a contractual obligation by failing to perform one’s own promise, by repudiating it, or by interfering with another party’s performance” Black’s Law 10th. Material breach. “A breach of contract that is significant enough to permit the aggrieved party to elect to treat the breach as total (rather than partial), thus excusing that party from further performance and affording it the right to sue for damages”
  11. What you're describing is not a breach of contract nor material breach. Both of those terms, as defined by Black's Law, imply there was a violation of a contractual obligation. "Exercising an option in a way that is not in strict compliance with the terms of the contract" is not, in fact, exercising an option; it's a non-binding offer to change the terms of the contract. That offer can be ignored/rejected, accepted, or counter-offered.
  12. Failing to exercise an option is not a material breach of the contract.
  13. Exactly. I was taught to put "90 days" in the first fill-in and did so for years. I trusted the initial guidance but, in hind sight, should have questioned it. I suspect I'm not alone.
  14. The clause isn't poorly worded. COs just don't know how to interpret it properly.
×
×
  • Create New...