Bill would allow foreign contractors to be sued in U.S. Courts
Monday, November 23rd, 2009
More than six years ago, Lt. Col. Dominic “Rocky” Baragona was serving in Iraq when he was killed after his Humvee was struck by a supply truck driven by an employee of a Defense Department contractor. Since that time, Baragona’s family has attempted to sue the contractor, Kuwait Gulf & Link Transport Co, for wrongful death.
But the company has successfully argued that American courts lack jurisdiction over the matter.
Lawmakers, however, hope to close that legal loophole. A Senate bill, first introduced in March, and re-introduced this week, would require foreign companies that agree to work on government contracts to consent to “personal jurisdiction” in U.S. federal courts.
Termination for Default
Friday, November 6th, 2009
TAKOTA CORPORATION v. THE UNITED STATES, COFC No. 06-553C, October 28, 2009.
Navy contract for boat ramps and dredging. The Navy terminated the contract for default for “failure to make progress to ensure completion of the contract and to perform the contract within the specified time.”
Plaintiff requests the termination be converted to one for convenience and the government moves to dismiss. Judge Bruggink notes of the four relevant factors in reviewing a decision to terminate for default –
“(1) evidence of subjective bad faith on the part of the government official, (2) whether there is a reasonable, contract-related basis for the official’s decision, (3) the amount of discretion given to the official, and (4) whether the official violated an applicable statute or regulation.” (citations omitted) only one is in play here, (2) was there a reasonable basis for the TFD? Judge Bruggink notes that many of the parties arguments are fact based and not conducive by motions for summary judgment. Judge Bruggink notes that “termination based on breach is a valid ground for termination even though the Navy did not rely on this justification when it issued the default termination.” Judge Bruggink grants summary judgment for the government finding that the contract required Takota to shore the seawalls and to submit a sheeting and shoring plan and there is no dispute that Takota did not shore or brace the seawalls and that Takota did not submit a sheeting and shoring plan and instead repeatedly insisted that this submittal was not required.
Fixed Priced contract with errors does not mean the Contractor is out in the Cold
Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009
There are avenues to correct pricing errors in Fixed Priced contract after award.
Army fixed price contract for aircraft maintenance with option years.
The government moves for summary judgment arguing that appellant’s claim for $26,061,962.00 for alleged mistakes during the submission of proposals is barred by the six year statute of limitations set forth in the CDA. The Board denies the motion to dismiss for the base year claim “without further development of the record about when appellant knew or should have known of the alleged mistakes in the backup sheets for the FPR.” With respect to the option years, the Board finds the “claim is subject to the continuing claim doctrine which we have determined to have application to government contract cases.” and that the claim was filed less than six years from the exercise of the first option and is therefore properly before the Board.
