Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Recommended Posts

I wouldn't recommend rushing out and relying on this decision. Aside from the obvious privity issues, government PCOs don't have authority to reform otherwise illegal contracts. The defendants claimed they are not subcontractors because they never agreed to become government subcontractors, and that the definition of "subcontractor" in the prime contract excludes them. In refuting these two arguments, the Board points out the subcontractor was already required by statute, separate and apart from the contract CLAUSE, not to violate Equal Opportunity laws. The subcontractor, by virtue of its STATUS as a subcontractor, was required to abide by, e.g., the Vietnam Era Veterans? Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974.

The subcontractor did not breach its contract when it violated the Act, it subjected itself to sanctions permitted under the Acts. In other words, incorporation of the clause was not required for the Board's decision. Rather, the decision relies in relevant part on 41 CFR sections 60-1.4(e), 60-250.5(e), & 60-741.5(e), to refute the subcontractors' suggestion that they were not subcontractors subject to the Acts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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