br549 Posted September 21, 2010 Report Share Posted September 21, 2010 http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/article...email_access=on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
br549 Posted September 21, 2010 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2010 OOPs, here's a better site. http://www.governmentcontractslawblog.com/...o-subcontracts/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Posted September 21, 2010 Report Share Posted September 21, 2010 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts