Jump to content

Options Clause


khm9p4

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, khm9p4 said:

Is the 52.217-9 clause covered by the Christian Doctrine?

No, because 52.217-9 is not a mandatory clause. It is a clause to be used by choice; see FAR 17.208(g). There is no legal requirement that a contract include options.

See also Life Machines Corp. v. U.S., 143 Fed. Cl. 267 (2019):

Quote

As stated by a judge of this court, under the Christian doctrine, “mandatory” “regulations are law, binding on the contract parties when otherwise applicable to the contract, and need not be physically incorporated into the contract.” Bay Cty., Fla. v. United States, 112 Fed.Cl. 195, 203 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), recons. denied, 2013 WL 5346523 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2013), aff'd, 796 F.3d 1369 (2015); see also Enron Fed. Sols., Inc. v. United States, 80 Fed.Cl. 382, 392 n.11 (2008) (stating that, under the Christian doctrine, “parties to a government contract are deemed to have agreed to contract terms required by law to be included in the contract” (citation omitted)); IBI Sec. Serv., Inc. v. United States, 19 Cl. Ct. 106, 109 (1989) (“The Christian doctrine is available only when relevant statutory or regulatory provisions are required to be included in an agency's contracts.” (citations omitted)), aff'd, 918 F.2d 188 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Application of the Christian doctrine does not depend on whether the omission of a mandatory contract clause was intentional or inadvertent. See Tolliver Grp., Inc. v. United States, 140 Fed.Cl. 520, 529 (2018) (“The [Christian] doctrine turns on whether the contract omits a mandatory clause, not on whether the omission was intentional or inadvertent.” (citing Bay Cty., Fla. v. United States, 112 Fed.Cl. at 202)); see also S.J. Amoroso Constr. Co. v. United States, 12 F.3d at 1075.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...