Source: http://www.christophllc.com/articles/how-to-write-a-contracting-officer-final-decision-for-government-contracts-claims/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 18:12:08+00:00

Document:
minimum, the Government attorney must play a significant advisory role in creating the Final Decision, and most Contracting Officers recognize this requirement of FAR 33.211(a)(2). Beyond legal assistance, do not neglect the expertise of other acquisition team members like engineers, logisticians, program managers, budget analysts, or auditors. Their expertise will provide specialized knowledge to compute expenses, compare the contractor’s performance to the contractual requirements, and analyze the sequence of events leading to the dispute. Contracting Officers need not operate in a vacuum, and indeed, they draft better Final Decisions in a collaborative environment.
In fact, FAR 1.602-2 mandates Contracting Officers to consider the advice of “specialists” as appropriate. Contracting Officers should seek assistance from any and all members of the acquisition team who can contribute.
The Final Decision is the starting point for future litigation, so seize the opportunity to create a favorable record of documentation from the outset. Do not make the common mistake of relying upon oral communications in a Final Decision. Take the time to comb the record for written memoranda or emails that spell out the facts and background. Systematically arrange the documents in a way that allows a third party to grasp the factual background immediately. For relatively simple or onedimensional claims, chronological ordering is optimal. Multifaceted or especially complex claims may call for topical ordering.
Assemble all relevant documents in a single file. This will help the Contracting Officer craft a commanding argument that marshals the data in a logical and compelling sequence. An additional benefit to this early planning is that for future litigation, many of the necessary documents for a “Rule 4 file” will already be prepared should the contractor decide to appeal. (Named after the fourth court rule of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, a Rule 4 file is a factual compilation of all documents the Government holds concerning the contract claim; in the Court of Federal Claims it is called the Administrative Record.) Plan, prepare, document, and organize as soon as possible to gain a tactical advantage in the claims process.
A “deemed denial” severely prejudices the Government’s position because it forgoes a valuable opportunity for initial claims review. The Final Decision is a powerful tool to frame issues for future litigation; to skip this process is a procedural blunder that must be avoided. A comprehensive Final Decision will include relevant facts, evidence, and authorities to buttress the Government’s argument for disposition. A “deemed denial” precludes this documentation, instead requiring it to be proffered later as part of the litigation process. As soon as a claim is received, the Government attorney and the Contracting Officer should consider the mandatory response timelines. Set strict deadlines for gathering documents, questioning acquisition team members, and writing and editing the Final Decision.
Aristotle invented the syllogism—a well-structured and powerful method of argumentation that gracefully guides the reader to a convincing conclusion. Use this rhetorical device to streamline, simplify, and strengthen the focal points of the Final Decision. Aristotelian syllogisms follow a basic formula: major premise or rule, minor premise or facts, and a conclusion that follows necessarily from the premises. This formula can be custom-tailored for Final Decisions in Government contract disputes.
The major premise is a citation to a regulation, statute, or federal case law. The minor premise outlines the factual scenario involving the contractor. The conclusion or “takeaway” is the most important part. It follows as a logical consequence from the synthesis of the rule and facts. No further argumentation is necessary because the initial premises provide all the logical groundwork.
As an example, consider a scenario wherein the contractor fails to deliver and blames the default on rainy weather, claiming that it is an excusable delay. One section of the Final Decision will prove that the default is not covered by the Excusable Delays clause. Major premise: The Excusable Delays clause, FAR 52.249-14, provides that contractors shall not be in default if the failure to deliver is due to unusually severe weather (rule). Minor premise: Two consecutive rainy days in Seattle, Washington is not unusually severe weather (facts). Conclusion: Therefore, the contractor’s failure to deliver is a default under the terms and conditions of the contract and is not excused by FAR 52.249-14.
This method of writing is clear, concise, convincing, and commanding. The conclusion rests upon controlling authority and follows from an orderly chain or thought. Writing with precision, logic, and persuasion illuminates the arguments, provides a roadmap for the reader, and brands the Final Decision as the product of a professional.
CHRISTOPH MLINARCHIK, JD, CFCM, PMP is an attorney, expert witness, consultant, professional instructor, and author of 50+ publications on contract law and acquisitions. As owner of Christoph LLC, he teaches courses and advises on contracting, source selections, proposals, bid protests, and government contract law to federal, military, and private industry professionals nationwide—from novices to C-level executives. Christoph was a senior contracting officer for the Department of Defense and has Defense contracting experience across the Air Force, Navy, Pentagon, and Office of the Secretary of Defense. He also previously served as an Air Force JAG acquisitions attorney. Christoph was recently honored with the “Top Professionals Under 40” award by National Contract Management Association. Christoph LLC is available for consultation, advice, and in-house training about Federal contracting topics, including source selections, proposals, government contract law, bid protests, and more. Visit www.ChristophLLC.com or email Christoph@ChristophLLC.com for details.
2 41 U.S.C. §605(a); FAR 33.211(a)(4)(i)-(vi).
3 41 U.S.C. §605(a); 41 U.S.C. §609(a)(3); see also Wilner v.
United States, 24 F.3d 1397 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(admissions favoring contractor are not evidence of Government liability), citing Assurance Co. v. United States, 813 F.2d 1202 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
4 See Decker & Co. v. West, 76 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
ASBCA No. 48136, 95-1 BCA ¶27,470.

References: §605
 §605
 §609
 v.

 v. 
 v.