Source: http://www.seidmanlaw.com/service-contracting-new-millennium-part-ii/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 19:04:22+00:00

Document:
Service Contracting In The New Millennium - Part II - Seidman & Associates, P.C.
This BRIEFING PAPER is the second of two PAPERS focusing on those policies and procedures that are unique to, or principally affect, the Federal Government’s acquisition of services. Part I, published last month, discussed the treatment of services as “commercial items” under statutes and Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 12, performance-based service contracting, the requirements for analyzing procurement opportunities against the laws and policy guidance on contract bundling, and ordering mechanisms for services, including orders placed under Federal Supply Schedule contracts and under task order contracts. 1 This Part II addresses a number of other crucial issues affecting the business relationship between federal agencies and private sector service contractors: (1) public-private competitions under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76, (2) the basics of the Service Contract Act, and (3) the fundamental elements of termination for convenience and termination for default of service contracts. As both PAPERS note, new laws or revised regulations or administrative policies currently being considered could affect several of these issues.
Under Government policy as stated in the Circular, agencies may not contract out for performance by private sector contractors “inherently governmental functions.” 7However, for “commercial activities” that provide products or services that can be obtained from commercial sources and that are “not inherently governmental,” agencies must determine whether they should contract out or have the work performed inhouse by Government employees by conducting a public-private cost comparison in accordance with the Revised Supplemental Handbook. 8 This cost comparison process is discussed in detail below.
Four general principles can be gleaned from OMB Circular A-76 and the Revised Supplemental Handbook.
For negotiated procurements, the request for proposals must include the “Notice of Cost Comparison (Negotiated)” solicitation provision at FAR 52.207-2. 46 This provision calls for (1) a private-private competition to determine which contractor’s proposal offers the best value to the Government followed by (2) a public-privatecompetition between the Government and the winning offeror from the private-privatecompetition.
All solicitations must contain the “Right of First Refusal of Employment” clause at FAR 52.207-3. 47 This clause gives federal employees a right of first refusal for positions created by a conversion from in-house performance to performance by contract.
There is considerable controversy over the continued efficacy of the OMB Circular A-76 process for conducting public-private competitions to determine whether a commercial activity performed by Government employees should be outsourced to the private sector. It is a widely discredited process.
Federal employee unions argue for competitions to determine whether commercial activities that are currently outsourced should be performed by federal employees. Contractors argue these are not Government functions and that the Government should not compete with its citizens. Contractors also argue it would be impracticable to conduct a competition to take commercial work in-house because a new Government infrastructure would have to be created to perform such work.
In addition, contractors are critical of the two-step process in negotiated procurements where the Government competes only against the winner of theprivate-private competition. They argue that this process results in technical leveling and permits the Government unfairly to use the approach that won the private-private competition. They assert that the process guarantees that the Government is “at the table” for the final cost comparison without having to “compete” on the same basis as interested private sector bidders.
Moreover, contractors are dissatisfied with the time required to conduct an A-76 cost comparison. In many cases, they feel it is not worth committing the resources for the chance of an award three years later when they can obtain more current opportunities by competing for traditional private-private opportunities or marketing their services through multiple award task order contracts or General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedules.
The SCA authorizes the DOL to issue regulations creating additional exemptions. 101The most important exemptions created by the DOL exempt certain contracts forcommercial services.
Service contracts, other than FAR Part 12 contracts for commercial services, may contain either the FAR 52.249-2 “Termination for Convenience of the Government (Fixed-Priced)” clause, which is not limited to services or the FAR 52.249-4 “Termination for Convenience of the Government (Services) (Short Form)” clause.
After a termination for convenience, a service contractor is faced with two issues.First, does the contract include the short form services clause, which limits recovery to services rendered? If the short form clause is not included, the contractor’s termination for convenience recovery is not limited to services rendered. Second, if the short form clause is included, was its inclusion reasonable under the standards set forth in the FAR?
To interpret the commercial item contract convenience termination provisions, FAR 12.403(a) provides that COs may continue to use FAR Part 49 “as guidance” to the extent that it does not conflict with FAR Part 12 and the “Contract Terms and Conditions-Commercial Items” clause at FAR 52.212-4. Several observations regarding the contractor’s convenience termination recovery under a commercial item contract can be made.
Second, questions remain to be resolved regarding application of the FAR 12.403(d) formula for contractor recovery, such as (1) how to measure the “percentage of the work performed” and (2) how to determine what charges “directly resulted from the termination.” For example, is percentage of performance to be mechanically calculated based on units delivered or physical progress or does it include initial costs allowable as under noncommercial item contract terminations? Are charges resulting “directly” from termination limited to settlement expenses or do they include “continuing” (post-termination) costs that are expressly allowable for noncommercial item contracts? Although the measure of recovery set forth in FAR 12.403(d) is ambiguous, because FAR 12.403(a) directs COs to continue to use FAR Part 49 for guidance to the extent it does not conflict with FAR Part 12, there appears to be no authority permitting a CO to reduce a contractor’s recovery below costs allowable under FAR Part 49.
Third, although the Government often relies on the FAR Part 49 rules to deny recovery of post-termination unabsorbed overhead in convenience termination settlements under noncommercial contracts on the ground that such costs are for a contractor’s ongoing business rather than the terminated contract, 139 the commercial item provisions appear to conflict with these rules. Post-termination unabsorbed overhead is clearly a cost resulting directly from the termination within the meaning of FAR 12.403(d). The argument for allowability of these costs is further buttressed by (a) Uniform Commercial Code § 2-708(2), which defines “damages” as including “reasonable overhead,” (b) commercial law cases awarding unabsorbed overhead, 140and (c) the fact that the limitations on allowability in the FAR Part 31 cost principles are expressly inapplicable in the settlement of commercial item contract convenience terminations.
Finally, the commercial item contract provisions deprive the Government of its right to audit the contractor’s records after a termination for convenience. However, a contractor still has the burden of proving its costs. If a CO issues a final decision denying the costs, thus forcing the contractor to litigate, the Government would be entitled to obtain the information in discovery in litigation.
A termination for default can have disastrous consequences for a contractor. 141 There is a sudden loss of work and of its contribution to overhead. An opportunity to make a profit is lost. Instead, the contractor is faced with the prospect of a potential liability for excess costs of reprocurement and the potential need to litigate to protect its rights. To make matters worse, a default may limit or preclude a contractor’s ability to obtain additional Government work.
Service contractors may avail themselves of two categories of defenses: (a) defenses available under all Government contracts and (b) substantial performance, an additional defense under service contracts.
(3) Substantial Performance-Service contractors have also been able to use as a defense the judicially created doctrine of substantial performance. The typical service contract includes numerous tasks to be repeatedly performed. The failure to perform one task, while technically a default under the “Default” clause, 145 will not by itself generally support a termination for default of the entire contract. In service contracts, a default termination is only justified where instances of noncompliance result in the contract not being substantially performed.
[The “Termination for cause” paragraph] contain[s] concepts which differ from those contained in the termination clauses prescribed in [FAR] Part 49. Consequently, the requirements of Part 49 do not apply when terminating contracts for commercial items and contracting officers shall follow the procedures in this section. Contracting officers may continue to use Part 49 as guidance to the extent that part 49 does not conflict with this section and the language of the termination paragraphs in 52.212-4.
From a practical standpoint there appears to be little difference between the clauses in FAR Part 12 commercial item contracts and other Government contracts.
(a) Grounds-The commercial items “termination for cause” provision sets forth three grounds for default: (1) any default by the contractor, (2) failure to comply with any contract terms and conditions, and (3) failure to provide adequate assurances of performance. These grounds appear essentially the same as those in an other than FAR Part 12 contract for commercial items.
First, any default by the contractor in a FAR Part 12 contract appears to be the same as failure to timely perform and failure to meet specifications in other than FAR Part 12 contracts for commercial items.
Second, failure to comply with any contract terms and conditions in a FAR Part 12 contract would appear to be equivalent to failure to perform other contract provisionsin other than FAR Part 12 contracts for commercial items.
Finally, as noted above, anticipatory repudiation is a judicially created doctrine. 150The underlying rationale appears to apply when the Government purchases commercial items under FAR Part 12.
(b) Defenses-In general the same defenses are applicable as in non-FAR part 12 contracts. Paragraph (f) of the FAR 52.212-4 “Contract Terms and Conditions-Commercial Items” clause, entitled “Excusable delays,” excuses the contractor from default if “nonperformance is caused by an occurrence beyond the reasonable control of the Contractor and without its fault or negligence.” This language appears to incorporate the non-FAR Part 12 defenses of (1) excusable delay as well as (2) defective specifications and impossibility if the contractor did not assume the risk.
Waiver of contract due date 153 and substantial performance 154 are judicially created doctrines. The rationales underlying each of these defenses appears to be as applicable to FAR Part 12 contracts as other Government contracts. Waiver of contract due date 155 and substantial performance 156 are defenses to breach of contract in contracts for services between private entities.
Finally, failure to follow required procedures may possibly be a defense to a termination for cause. However, its applicability would be limited. As noted, the “Default” clause for other than FAR Part 12 service contracts requires the Government to issue a cure notice giving the contractor at least 10 days to cure a deficiency before issuing a termination. 159 There is no such requirement under the FAR Part 12 “termination for cause” provision.
These Guidelines are intended to assist you in understanding the Federal Government’s acquisition of services. They are not, however, a substitute for professional representation in any specific situation.
1. Remember that a cost comparison is generally required for a commercial activitycurrently performed by Government employees. Continued in-house performance must generally be justified by lower cost. Adjustments must be made in a cost comparison for the different manner in which Government agencies and contractors compute costs.
2. Keep in mind that both contractors and agency employee representatives may challenge a cost comparison by filing an administrative appeal with the agency.
3. Be aware that only a contractor can challenge an A-76 determination by filing aprotest at the GAO or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. A protest may be filed only after an unsuccessful agency administrative appeal. Contractor protests of agency A-76 determinations have had an unusually high success rate.
4. Remember that the SCA requires a federal service contractor to pay its service employees no less that the minimum wage rates and fringe benefits set forth in the applicable DOL wage determination. The SCA applies to all federal service contracts over $2,500 whose principal purpose is to provide services in the United States.
5. Recognize that under the SCA, a “service employee” is any person engaged in the performance of a covered service contract. Executive, administrative and professional personnel and apprentices, student learners, and certain employees with disabilitiesare exempt from the SCA wage determination requirement.
6. Bear in mind that the SCA exempts, among other things, construction contracts, most manufacturing contracts, communications services contracts, and public utility service contracts. In addition DOL has issued a regulation exempting certain contracts for commercial services.
7. Be aware that service contracts other than FAR Part 12 contracts for commercial services may contain either the FAR 52.249-2 “Termination for Convenience of the Government (Fixed-Priced)” clause, which is not limited to services, or the FAR 52.249-4 “Termination for Convenience of the Government (Services) (Short Form)” clause.
8. Note that the FAR “Termination for Convenience of the Government (Services) (Short Form)” clause severely limits the costs a service contractor may recover following a convenience termination. The use of the short form clause is limited to instances where the successful offeror will not incur substantial costs in preparing for or carrying out the work. If this clause is used inappropriately, a court or board mayreplace it with the FAR clause not limited to services, which does not contain these restrictions on recovery.
9. Keep in mind that under a FAR Part 12 contract for commercial services, a contractor may recover following a termination for a convenience for the percentage of contract price reflecting the percentage of work performed and any charges a contractor can demo nstrate resulted directly from the termination. A contractor may prepare its settlement proposal using its standard accounting system, and the Government has no audit rights.
10. Recognize that there are unresolved questions concerning the extent of contractor recovery for termination for convenience under the FAR Part 12 termination for convenience provisions.
11. Bear in mind that the judicial doctrine of substantial performance is an additional defense to a termination for default of a service contract. Service contractors may also avail themselves of defenses available to other contractors.
12. Note that FAR Part 12 contracts for commercial services use the term termination for cause instead of termination for default. Nevertheless, the rules governing a termination for cause are similar to those for a termination for default.
1 See Paul J. Seidman, Robert D. Banfield, Alan L. Chvotkin, and Steve Charles, “Service Contracting in the New Millennium-Part I,” Briefing Papers No. 02-11 (Oct. 2002).
2 See generally Joseph J. Dyer, “The OMB Circular A-76 Public-Private Competition Process,” Briefing Papers No. 01-5 (Apr. 2001); Stephen E. Ruscus, “The Fair Act,” Briefing Papers No. 99-13 (Dec. 1999); Agnes P. Dover, “Outsourcing & Privatization: Recent Developments,” Briefing Papers No. 97-4 (Mar. 1997).
3 OMB Circular No. A-76, “Performance of Commercial Activities” (Aug. 4, 1983) (revised June 14, 1999) (available at http:// www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/).
4 Pub. L. No. 105-270, 112 Stat. 2382 (1998); see 31 U.S.C. § 501 note.
5 OMB Circular No. A-76, Revised Supplemental Handbook, “Performance of Commercial Activities” (Mar. 1996) (updated through Transmittal Memorandum No. 20, June 14, 1999) (available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/) [hereinafter Handbook].
6 OMB Circular No. A-76, supra note 3, ¶ 4.a.
7 Id. ¶¶ 5.b, 6.e.
8 Id. ¶¶ 5.a, 6.a.
9 Pub. L. No. 105-270, § 2(a), (c).
10 Id. § 2(d), (e).
11 Id. § 2(a); Handbook, supra note 5, app. 2, ¶ A.
12 Pub. L. No. 105-270, § 2(b), (c); Handbook, supra note 5, app. 2, ¶ G.1; see, e.g., 67 Fed. Reg 64,150; 44 GC ¶ 409.
13 Pub. L. No. 105-270, § 2(c); Handbook, supra note 5, app. 2, ¶ G.1.
14 Pub. L. No. 105-270, § 3(a); Handbook, supra note 5, app. 2, ¶ G.2.
15 Pub. L. No. 105-270, § 3(b); Handbook, supra note 5, app. 2, ¶ G.2.
16 Pub. L. No. 105-270, § 3(c); Handbook, supra note 5, app. 2, ¶ G.3 (revised from 30 “calendar” days to 30 “working” days by Transmittal Memorandum No. 22 (Aug. 31, 2000)).
17 Pub. L. No. 105-270, § 3(d); Handbook, supra note 5, app. 2, ¶ G.4 (revised from 28 “calendar” days to 28 “working” days by Transmittal Memorandum No. 22 (Aug. 31, 2000)).
18 Pub. L. No. 105-270, § 3(e)(1); Handbook, supra note 5, app. 2, ¶ G.5.
19 Pub. L. No. 105-270, § 3(e)(2); Handbook, supra note 5, app. 2, ¶ G.5.
20 OMB Circular No. A-76, supra note 3, ¶ 6(e); Pub. L. No. 105-270, § 5(2); see Handbook, supra note 5, pt. I, ch. 1, ¶ B (referring for guidance to OFPP Policy Letter 92-1, “Inherently Governmental Functions” (Sept. 23, 1992), 57 Fed. Reg. 45,096 (Sept. 30, 1992)).
21 OMB Circular No. A-76, supra note 3, ¶ 6(e); Pub. L. No. 105-270, § 5(2).
22 Pub. L. No. 105-270, § 5(2)(C).
23 Handbook, supra note 5, app. 1.
24 See OMB Circular A-76, supra note 3, attach. A; see OFPP Policy Letter 92-1, supra note 20, ¶ 5 (stating that the list of “commercial activities” in OMB Circular A-76 is an “authoritative, nonexclusive list of functions that are not inherently governmental functions” and that they “therefore may be contracted”).
25 OMB Circular A-76, supra note 3, ¶ 5.b.
26 Handbook, supra note 5, pt. I, ch. 1, ¶ B.1.
27 Id. pt. I, ch. 1, ¶ D.1.
28 Id. pt. I, ch. 1, ¶ D.2.
29 Id. pt. I, ch. 1, ¶ C.8; OMB Circular A-76, supra note 3, ¶ 8.d.
30 Handbook, supra note 5, pt. I, ch. 1, ¶ C.
32 Handbook, supra note 5, pt. I, ch. 3, ¶ J.1.
34 Handbook, supra note 5, pt. I, ch. 3, ¶ J.3.
35 Id. pt. I, ch. 3, ¶ A.3.
36 Id. pt. I, ch. 3, ¶ C.
37 Id. pt. I, ch. 3, ¶ D.1.
38 Id. pt. I, ch. 3, ¶ A.3.
39 Id. app. 1 (definition of “Most Efficient Organization (MEO)”).
40 Id. pt. I, ch. 3, ¶ E.4.e.
41 Id. pt. I, ch. 3, ¶ E.2.
42 Id. pt. I, ch. 3, ¶ A.3.
43 Id. pt. I, ch 3, ¶ E.4.e.
44 Id. pt. I, ch. 3, ¶ A.3.
46 Id. pt. I, ch. 3, ¶ G.3.
47 Id. pt. I, ch. 3, ¶ G.4.
48 Id. pt. I, ch. 3, ¶ A.3.
49 Id. pt. I, ch. 3, ¶ J.1.
50 Id. pt. I, ch. 3, ¶ J.3.
52 Handbook, supra note 5, pt. I, ch. 3, ¶ J.3.
53 Id. pt. I, ch. 3, ¶ A.3.
54 Id. pt. I, ch. 3, ¶ K.
55 Id. pt. II, ch. 1, ¶ A.3.
56 Id. pt. II, ch. 2, ¶ A.7.
57 Id. pt. II, ch. 3, ¶ H & illus. II-1.
58 Id. pt. II, ch. 3, ¶ B.1.
59 Id. pt. II, ch. 3, ¶ B.2.
60 Id. pt. II, ch. 3, ¶ B.4.
61 Id. pt. II, ch. 3, ¶ C.
62 Id. pt. II, ch. 3, ¶ D.
63 Id. pt. II, ch. 3, ¶ E.
64 Id. pt. II, ch. 3, ¶ F.
65 Id. pt. II, ch. 3, ¶ G.
66 Id. pt. II, ch. 4, ¶ A.
67 OMB Circular A-76, supra note 3, ¶ 7.c.(8); Handbook, supra note 5, pt. I, ch. 3, ¶ K.7.
68 Island Equip. Co., Comp. Gen. Dec. B-209854, 82-2 CPD ¶ 542.
69 International Graphics v. United States, 4 Cl. Ct 186 (1983).
70 American Fed’n of Gov’t Employees, AFL-CIO, Comp. Gen. Dec. B-282904.2, 2000 CPD ¶ 87, 42 GC ¶ 225.
71 American Fed’n of Gov’t Employees, AFL-CIO v. United States, 258 F.3d 1294 (2000), 43 GC ¶ 137, cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 920 (2002).
72 See GAO Commercial Activities Panel, Final Report: Improving the Sourcing Decisions of the Government 19-20, app. D (Apr. 30, 2002) (available at http://www.gao.gov); James J. McCullough, Deneen J. Melander & Steven A. Alerding, “Feature Comment: Year 2001 OMB Circular A-76 Cost Comparison Developments,” 44 GC ¶ 1 (Jan. 9, 2002).
73 LBM Inc., Comp. Gen. Dec. B-286271, 2000 CPD ¶ 194, 42 GC ¶ 292.
74 COBRO Corp., Comp. Gen. Dec. B-287578.2, 2001 CPD ¶ 181, 43 GC ¶ 459.
75 Rice Servs., LTD, Comp. Gen. Dec. B-284997, 2000 CPD ¶ 113, 42 GC ¶ 298.
76 DynCorp Technical Servs. LLC, Comp. Gen. Dec. B-284833.3 et al., 2001 CPD ¶ 112, 43 GC ¶ 294.
77 BAE Sys., Comp. Gen. Dec. B-287189, 2001 CPD ¶ 86, 43 GC ¶ 210.
78 DZS/Baker LLC, Comp. Gen. Dec. B-281224 et al., 99-1 CPD ¶ 19, 41 GC ¶ 87.
79 Johnson Controls World Servs., Comp. Gen. Dec. B-286714.2, 2001 CPD ¶ 20, 43 GC ¶ 76.
80 Jones/Hill Joint Venture, Comp. Gen. Dec. B-286194.4 et al, 2001 CPD ¶ 194, 43 GC ¶ 479, decision aff’d and remedy made prospective on recons., 2002 CPD ¶ 76, 44 GC ¶ 223.
81 Pub. L. No. 106-398, § 832, 114 Stat. 1654 (2000).
82 GAO Commercial Activities Panel, supra note 72; see Ralph C. Nash, “Contracting Out: The Debate Continues,” 16 Nash & Cibinic Rep. ¶ 33 (July 2002).
83 The proposed revision is available on the OMB website at http:// www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/index.html. See 67 Fed. Reg. 69,769 (Nov. 19, 2002); 44 GC ¶ 455.
84 Pub. L. No. 89-286, 79 Stat. 1034 (1965) (codified as amended at 41 U.S.C. §§ 351-358). See generally Daniel J. Donohue & Claude P. Goddard, Jr., “Complying With the Service Contract Act,” Briefing Papers No. 01-9 (Aug. 2001); Gilbert J. Ginsburg, Daniel B. Abrahams & Catherine A. English, “The Service Contract Act,” Briefing Papers No. 90-7 (Jun. 1990).
85 41 U.S.C. § 351(a)(1), (2).
88 29 C.F.R. §§ 4.6(j), 4.114; FAR 52.222-41, para. (l).
89 41 U.S.C. §§ 351(a), 352(b), 353(a).
90 Id. §§ 352(a), (c), 354; FAR 22.1022-.1023, .1025.
91 41 U.S.C. § 351(a).
94 29 C.F.R. § 4.6(o)(1); FAR 52.222-41(q)(1).
95 29 C.F.R. § 4.6(o)(1); FAR 52.222-41(q)(1).
96 41 U.S.C. § 351(a).
97 Id. § 351(b); FAR 22.1003-1.
98 29 C.F.R. § 4.130.
100 41 U.S.C. § 356.
102 29 C.F.R. § 4.123(e)(1)(i), (ii); see also discussion at 66 Fed. Reg. 5328 (Jan. 18, 2001); 43 GC ¶ 38.
103 29 C.F.R. § 4.123(e)(2)(ii).
104 Id. § 4.123(e)(2)(i); see also discussion at 66 Fed. Reg. 5328 (Jan. 18. 2001); 43 GC ¶ 38.
105 29 C.F.R. § 4.123(e)(2)(iv)(C); see 41 U.S.C. § 353(c).
106 41 U.S.C. § 351(a).
107 Id. § 351(b); see 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.
108 29 U.S.C. § 207.
109 41 U.S.C. § 355.
111 Id. § 358; 29 C.F.R. §§ 4.50-4.56.
112 See 29 C.F.R. § 4.4(a); FAR 53.301-98, -98a.
113 29 C.F.R. § 4.4(b).
115 41 U.S.C. § 358.
116 29 C.F.R. § 4.6(b)(2); FAR 22.1019, 52.222-41, para. (c)(2).
117 29 C.F.R. § 4.6(b)(2)(ii); FAR 52.222-41, para. (c)(2)(ii); FAR 53.301-1444.
118 29 C.F.R. § 4.6(b)(2); FAR 22.1019, 52.222-41, para. (c)(2).
119 29 C.F.R. § 4.6(b)(2)(ii), (iv)(A); FAR 22.1019, 52.222-41, para. (c)(2)(ii), (iv)(A).
120 41 U.S.C. § 352(a); 29 C.F.R. § 4.187(a).
121 See 29 C.F.R. § 4.187(e) and decisions of the Administrator cited therein.
122 41 U.S.C. § 352(a); 29 C.F.R. § 4.187(a).
123 41 U.S.C § 354(a); 29 C.F.R. 4.188(a), (b).
124 41 U.S.C. 352(c); 29 C.F.R. 4.190(a).
126 FAR 22.1006(c), 52.222-43, -44.
127 FAR 52.222-43, para. (e), -44, para. (d).
128 See Lockheed Support Sys. v. United States, 36 Fed. Cl. 424 (1996), 38 GC ¶ 508; Professional Servs. Unified, Inc., ASBCA 45799, 94-1 BCA ¶ 26,580.
129 FAR 22.1006(b), 22.1016, 52.222-42.
130 See generally Paul J. Seidman & Robert D. Banfield, “Maximizing Termination for Convenience Settlements,” Briefing Papers No. 95-5 (Apr. 1995); Paul J. Seidman & Robert D. Banfield, “Preparing Termination for Convenience Settlement Proposals for Fixed-Priced Contracts,” Briefing Papers No. 97-11 (Oct. 1997).
133 160 Ct. Cl. 1, 312 F.2d 418, mot. for recons. denied, 160 Ct. Cl. 58, 320 F.2d 345, cert denied, 375 U.S. 954 (1963).
134 Guard-All of Am., ASBCA 22167, 80-2 BCA ¶ 14,462, 23 GC ¶ 128.
135 Carrier Corp., GSBCA 8516, 90-1 BCA ¶ 22,409.
136 See FAR 52.212-4, para. (l).
137 See Seidman & Banfield, Briefing Papers No. 95-5, supra note 130.
138 For a discussion of techniques for maximizing contractor recovery, see id.
139 See J.W. Cook & Sons, Inc., ASBCA 39691, 92-3 BCA ¶ 25053.
140 See, e.g., Jericho Sash & Door Co. v. Building Erectors, Inc ., 286 N.E.2d 343 (Mass. 1972); Distribu-Dor, Inc. v. Karadanis, 8 U.C.C. Rep. 36 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970); Vitex Mfg. Corp. v. Caribtex Corp ., 377 F.2d 795 (3d Cir. 1967); Huffman Towing, Inc. v. Mainstream Shipyard & Supply, Inc., 388 F. Supp. 1362 (N.D. Miss. 1975) (relying on UCC § 2-708(2) for recovery of overhead in a maritime case).
141 See generally Paul J. Seidman & Robert D. Banfield, “How To Avoid & Overturn Terminations for Default,” Briefing Papers 98-12 (Nov. 1998).
143 For a detailed discussion, see Briefing Papers No. 98-12, supra note 141, at 2-4.
144 For a detailed discussion, see Briefing Papers No. 98-12, supra note 141, at 4-6.
146 Swanson Group, Inc., ASBCA 44664, 98-2 BCA ¶ 29,896.
147 Sentry Corp., ASBCA 29308, 84-3 BCA ¶ 17,601.
149 FAR 52.249-8, para (a)(2), 49.402-3(d), 49.607(a).
150 Kennedy v. United States, 164 Ct. Cl. 507 (1964), 6 GC ¶ 106.
151 United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132 (1918).
152 See Austin Co. v. United States, 161 Ct. Cl. 76, 314 F.2d 518, cert. denied, 375 U.S. 830 (1963).
153 DeVito v. United States, 188 Ct. Cl. 979, 413 F.2d 1147 (1969), 11 GC ¶ 307.
154 Swanson Group, ASBCA 44664, 98-2 BCA ¶ 29896.
155 Corbin on Contracts § 754, One Volume Ed. (1952).
156 Corbin on Contracts § 701, One Volume Ed. (1952).
157 See FAR 52.249-8, para. (a).
159 FAR 52.249-8, para (a)(2), 49.402-3(d), 49.607(a).

References: § 2
 § 501
 § 2
 § 2
 § 2
 § 2
 § 2
 § 3
 § 3
 § 3
 § 3
 § 3
 § 3
 § 5
 § 5
 § 5
 v. 
 v. 
 § 832
 § 351
 § 351
 § 4
 § 4
 § 351
 § 351
 § 4
 § 356
 § 4
 § 4
 § 4
 § 4
 § 353
 § 351
 § 351
 § 201
 § 207
 § 355
 § 358
 § 4
 § 4
 § 358
 § 4
 § 4
 § 4
 § 4
 § 352
 § 4
 § 4
 § 352
 § 4
 § 354
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 754
 § 701