Given the “vague” nature of the Contract, future conflict seems possible.

[Moderator]

See State of Ohio v. U. S., No. 20-288C, October 7, 2022. 

Quote

As the Court noted at oral argument, the Corps and Ohio have an ongoing relationship, and the same problems of Contract application are likely to arise again in the future. Tr. at 33:20–34:6. Given the “vague” nature of the Contract, future conflict seems possible. See, e.g., id. at 53:16 (Government counsel describing the Contract as “vague”). As the proceeding moves into the damages phase, the Court encourages the parties to work together to establish a dispute resolution process for expenses that are challenged in the future, as well as other issues that may arise in the course of the contractual relationship. Alternatively, the parties should consider amending the Contract to clarify its terms.

 

[here_2_help]

Quote

The Court holds that the United States breached the Contract by charging Ohio for unauthorized O&M costs and Ohio is entitled to summary judgment on this claim. The record demonstrates that the United States charged Ohio for two types of expenses that are not related to the Project.

I can help the United States in designing a cost accounting system that considers such concepts as "allocability" and helps to allocate costs in reasonable proportion to the benefits received by the parties.

United States, if you're interested, call me.

[joel hoffman]

2 hours ago, bob7947 said:

Quote:

As the Court noted at oral argument, the Corps and Ohio have an ongoing relationship, and the same problems of Contract application are likely to arise again in the future. Tr. at 33:20–34:6. Given the “vague” nature of the Contract, future conflict seems possible. See, e.g., id. at 53:16 (Government counsel describing the Contract as “vague”). As the proceeding moves into the damages phase, the Court encourages the parties to work together to establish a dispute resolution process for expenses that are challenged in the future, as well as other issues that may arise in the course of the contractual relationship. Alternatively, the parties should consider amending the Contract to clarify its terms.

The USACE has long promoted the policy of Partnering between internal and external stakeholders for projects and contracts. It was first conceived and developed by people like Lester Edelman, former longtime Chief of USACE Office of Counsel.

This situation is one that should be able to be resolved through a formal Partnering Process, which probably should have been implemented earlier. 

The USACE Office of Counsel is involved in this Court Case. The Office of Counsel has also promoted using Alternative Dispute Resolution processes in lieu of litigation whenever possible.

It should be embarrassing that a Court had to tell them what is obvious.