burner2214

On 6/27/2019 at 7:33 PM, formerfed said:

I forgot all about Boyle.  I did more looking on recent developments and there are definitely cases relevant to OPs example.  Another related and parallel issue is agent relationships.  So it seems the contractor could be immune from claims or liability using one or both of these arguments.

Oh interesting. I wasn't really looking at it from the contractor's perspective. I'll have to do some more research into the scope of Boyle and subsequent cases. I.e. does it just apply to injuries resulting in defects in design of manufactured products or are contractors immune from all state laws when fulfilling the terms of USG contracts unless immunity is specifically waived by the Federal government?

On 6/28/2019 at 5:17 AM, joel hoffman said:

See for example, 

52.212-4 (q): “ Other compliances. The Contractor shall comply with all applicable Federal, State and local laws,  executive orders, rules and regulations applicable to its performance under this contract.”

The instant example involves violations of federal law, so may not address the original question of compliance with state laws. 

However, the above commercial contract clause requires the CONTRACTOR to comply with state laws and regulations that would be “applicable to its performance under [the] contract. “ 

The original question is complex of course. I believe the question concerns whether the federal government could be liable for contractor violations of state law. 

Off installation work would surely be applicable to compliance with state and local laws. One question there would be - does the federal government also have liability for its contractor violating state laws off site? The contract requires the contractor to comply but is the fed government then contracting for work that is directly in violation of state laws? 

On site compliance is more complicated because applicability of state laws on-site may depend upon the specifics of the situation. 

The provided example of polluting a stream or ground water actually involves violations of not only state but Federal law.

 

Yes this is the crux of the matter. In the real life scenario it's not related to environmental contamination. For obvious reasons I don't want to provide actual scenario facts.

There is a part of the contract that conflicts with 52.212-4(q), so the contractor basically had to chose between complying with the contract and violating state law. It unknowingly chose the former and this eventually came to light, but not from a party that is likely to bring a complaint.

My conclusion is that I should assume sovereign immunity and research laws, regs, and policy for waivers related to the specific facts of the case.

On 6/28/2019 at 4:47 AM, jwomack said:

On a case-by-case basis, there may be (e.g., CERCLA).  But, no, there is no single federal statute/reg that requires federal contracts/actions to comply with all state laws.

 

Are you sure?  What if performance was on federal property?

Good point, no I'm not sure. In my hypo I assumed, but didn't say that performance was on private property. My point with that statement was to obviate discussions about the contractor's liability.

Is there a Federal statute or regulation that requires Federal contracts or actions to comply with state laws?

For instance (this is a totally made up hypothetical) let's say a Federal contract includes the use of a chemical in manufacturing that is banned by the state where manufacturing is to take place. Let's say this banned chemical is used in performing work under the federal contract and its use leads to contamination of a local waterway. Clearly the company would be liable for violating state law, but would the USG have any liability for signing a contract in contravention with state law? I think the answer is "it's a bad idea to do this, but technically no the Federal government can't be held liable for violations of state law."

Not looking for a legal opinion of course, just references to statutes or cases.