Contract, contract, whos got the contract? Affiliation. It never seems to be a good thing. But that doesnt stop attorneys from trying to redefine the boundaries of affiliation when it suits their purpose. In a recent case the Court of Federal Claims found for the plaintiff, who protested an award under the GSA schedules program. At issue was whether the contracting agency rightly awarded a contract under the GSA Schedules program to a company that didnt have a schedule contract at the time of offer as required in the solicitation. S-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g c-r-e-d-u-l-i-t-y .... The argument presented by the co-defendants, the US and the awardee, was that the awardee was acting as an agent for an affiliate firm that did have a schedule contract, and that therefore the award was justified. Right. Using the old If Johnny has an apple, and Johnny and I are related, then I have an apple theory. Wow. Flunk Logic 101, did we? If the Court bought that line then we have a bridge in Brooklyn they might be interested in.... But they didnt. Instead, they said Bit of a stretch there, boys and found for the plaintiff. And the winner is ...! Comical as this far-fetched legal argument may seem to the famed reasonable and prudent persons among us, it shows just how far federal agencies and lawyers are willing to go to justify or retain an award, no matter how far they have to try and stretch the truth or the Courts imagination. This one merits an entry in Seinfelds Bizarro Jerry Hall Of Fame! But far-fetched legal theories of contractual privity aside, the Court rightly pointed out that just because an affiliate firm had a GSA schedule contract doesnt mean the defendant firm had one. Score one for the good guys, and hopefully defendants had to pay all the petitioners legal fees. That would be justice.
Posted on: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 22:10:26 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015