|
Volume 6 - Number 05 | February 4, 2008
|
EDITOR'S NOTES
In the news industry, retractions are an unfortunate part of life. Sometimes, we just get it wrong. Politicians, too, will back peddle on statements said or positions taken for the good of their careers. In Hollywood, celebrities issue statements or enter rehab to apologize for or “fix” past wrongs. Whether you call it a retraction, 180-degree turn, volte-face or more benignly, a policy change, the effects are usually uncomfortable for the errant party. So, what happens when a party to a lawsuit does an about-face on its testimony? That’s the pivotal question in this week’s first case.
In California, a court determines that a late final payment does not have the same legal protections for the contractor as a late progress payment. If the owner delays final payment, the contractor cannot necessarily recuperate the court and attorney fees and costs spent to track down the delinquent money.
In the federal government, the lines of regulatory responsibility between agencies are often blurred. When determining a bid award on a Veterans Administration project, the GAO rules that the Small Business Administration, not the VA, maintains the right to determine if a bidder meets the project’s SBA eligibility requirements.
|
|
ELIGIBILITY STATUS SHOULD HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO SBA
The Small Business Administration has the responsibility to determine a bidder’s eligibility on an SBA contract. Other government agencies should defer to the SBA for questions of eligibility before determining that a bidder is nonresponsive.
|
|
BRIEFLY NOTED
Joint Venture, Consultants Pay $458 Million to Settle Big Dig Claims
|
|
ON THE MOVE
Find out who got hired and who got promoted in this new column. Want to see your company’s latest news here? E-mail it to editor@wpl.net.
|
|
