Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Ground and Flight Risk'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Instructions and Terms of Use
    • Terms Of Use
    • Before You Register, Before You Post
  • Contracting Forum
    • What Happened?
    • Polls
    • COVID-19 And Its Effect on Contracting
    • For Beginners Only
    • Contracting Workforce
    • Recommended Reading
    • Contract Award Process
    • Contract Pricing Including CAS & Allowable Costs
    • Contract Administration
    • Schedules, GWACS, MACs, IDIQs
    • Subcontracts & Subcontract Management
    • Small Business, Socioeconomic Programs
    • Proposed Law & Regulations; Legal Decisions


  • The Wifcon Blog
  • Don Mansfield's Blog
  • Bob Antonio's Blog
  • NCMA HQ Blog
  • Professor Ralph Nash's Blog
  • Emptor Cautus' Blog
  • Centre Knowledge Blog
  • Leftbrainpro.com Answer Blog
  • SmallGovCon.com
  • Patterns of Procurement
  • “Three-In-Two” Rule for Joint Ventures

Product Groups

There are no results to display.


  • Rules & Tools
  • Legal Opinions
  • News

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 1 result

  1. I am struggling to find the benefits of the Ground and Flight Risk (GFRC) clause when applied to contracts for repair and maintenance of aircraft. Are there any sources that can help? The GFRC limits the contractor's liability for loss or damage to the aircraft by, in effect, creating a deductible and then self-insuring the balance of the loss. The clause is based on an assumption that, in the long run, the government's cost of self-insurance will be less than paying for the contractor's insurance to cover these risks. Where I am confused is how this clause interacts with the Government Property clause on aircraft that are provided to a contractor for repair, maintenance, modification, etc. Under the GFP clause, the contractor's liability for loss or damage of property is very limited. FAR 52.245-1(h)(1)(i-iii) provides the contractor shall not be liable for loss of Government property (which is defined earlier in the clause to include damage and destruction) furnished under the contract unless the risk is covered by insurance, the loss is the result of willful misconduct or lack of good faith on the part of the Contractor's managerial personnel, or the Contracting Officer has revoked the Government's assumption of risk. If I am reading the Government Property clause correctly, it seems to me that the GFRC reduces the scope of the Government's self-insurance by creating a "deductible" that otherwise would not exist. What am I missing? Thanks for your assistance.
  • Create New...