Gmoney

Too bad, thanks for the responses though. I think I may have a limited liability clause for some future contracts.

I will lay out another secario that recently happened. A heavy piece of equipment was operating in the forest and it caught on fire. The fire spread to the ground and the contractor kept it lined and in control. When the government personnel arrived the fire was contained to the machine itself and the contractor had dispatched his own resources and they were in route. Should the contractor pay for our response personnel when his employees were holding the fire with his own resources in route? All applicable languge was in the contract for supressive efforts as well as 52.237.2 but the "installation" is a little vauge I think when you are in the middle of no where.

Service contract, fixed price (no cost reimbursemet). I this secanario the damages to the government would be the loss of trees, brush, loss of habitat (all costs would be replacement) as well as fire suppression by the government. So, do you think the government should assume any of the risk when doing forestry related contracting work where there would always be a chance to start a fire?

From what I have gathered contractors under a firm-fixed-price contract can be held liable for all costs associated with damages caused by their operations, accidental or by their negligence. So if the contractor did everything under the contract following all mitigation measures to prevent starting a fire and lets say there was an accident and a wildfire starts and burns down the project (negligence not considered, no other entities involved just contractor and gov). Q1:Didn't the government assume some risk to have the contractor working out there when some risk was apparent as well as the contractor? How liable should the contractor really be? How much responsibility should the government assume?