|
Volume 5 - Number 47 | November 26, 2007
|
EDITOR'S NOTES
Anyone who has ever played organized sports knows that the players change the rules midway through the game. The same applies to contracts (unless change orders come into play). On a project with substantial federal funding, a municipality tried to insert a provision for local hiring preferences into the contract. The state transportation department instructed it to remove the addition, which it did. However, the municipality reinserted the provision after the bid award, prompting the federal agency to withdraw its funding.
Credibility plays a significant role when a contract breach suit goes to court. When the facts are vague, the dispute can come down to a game of “he said/she said.” In this week’s second case, the court accepted the version of the story presented by the owner.
The final case this week draws from the experience gained from a Coast Guard contract. Despite objections from a small business, government agencies may be able to bundle small contracts into one larger contract if the cost savings can be justified.
|
|
CONTRACTOR’S BREACH PRECEDED OWNER’S NONPAYMENT
In a “he said/she said” case over contract breach, the decision comes down to witness credibility, rules a state appeals court. Here, the contractor’s defective work instigated the initial breach.
|
|
BUNDLING OF CONTRACTS ALLOWED DESPITE IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESS
Contractors can take a lesson from a matter involving a Coast Guard maintenance and repair contract—an exception to the Small Business Act allows agencies to bundle small contracts into a single contract when significant cost savings can be realized.
|
|
