Equitable adjustment

Last updated

An equitable adjustment, in government contracting, is a contract adjustment pursuant to a changes clause, to compensate the contractor expense incurred due to actions of the Government or to compensate the Government for contract reductions. An equitable adjustment includes an allowance for profit; clauses that provide for adjustments, excluding profit, are not considered "equitable adjustments."

A changes clause, in government contracting, is a required clause in United States government construction contracts.

Contents

Variations

In a "changes clause" in government construction contracts

Changes clauses give the government the power unilaterally to order contractual modifications; [1] in return, the contract specifies that if the parties are unable to agree on compensation to be received by the contractor for the modified work, the contractor shall be entitled to an equitable adjustment. The goal of an equitable adjustment is to place the contractor in the position he or she would have been in had the change not been encountered. The adjustment should not alter the contractor's profit or loss position from what it was before the change occurred. [2] As mutually agreed by the government and contractor.

Venues

Equitable adjustments are determined by federal agencies. [3] The cornerstone of the regulatory scheme is the Federal Acquisition Regulations System, which comprises the Federal Acquisition Regulation (hereinafter referred to as "FAR"), which are contained in Chapter 1 of Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations, [4] and agency regulations supplementing or implementing the FAR. [5] Generally the FAR apply to contract solicitations issued on or after April 1, 1984. [6] Earlier contracts are governed by the prior agency regulations. The principal prior regulations were the Defense Acquisition Regulations [7] and the Federal Procurement Regulations. [8]

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) is the principal set of rules in the Federal Acquisition Regulations System regarding government procurement in the United States, and is codified at Chapter 1 of Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 48 C.F.R. 1.

There have been several major legislative changes over the years. The Contract Disputes Act of 1978 [9] and the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982 [10] established new procedures and remedies for the resolution of disputes between the government and contractors. The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) [11] encourages competitive government procurement procedures. [12]

The Federal Courts Improvement Act, 96 Stat. 25., was a law enacted by the United States on April 2, 1982 which established the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the United States Claims Court. The statute was intended to promote greater uniformity in certain areas of federal jurisdiction and relieve the pressure on the dockets of the Supreme Court and the courts of appeals for the regional circuits.

The Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) of 1984, 41 U.S.C. 253, is United States legislation governing the hiring of contractors. It requires U.S. federal government agencies to arrange “full and open competition through the use of competitive procedures” in their procurement activities unless otherwise authorized by law.CICA was passed into law as a foundation for the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and to foster competition and reduce costs. The theory was that more competition for procurements would reduce costs and allow more small businesses to win Federal Government contracts. Under CICA all procurements must be competed as full and open so any qualified company can submit an offer.

Procurement is the process of finding and agreeing to terms, and acquiring goods, services, or works from an external source, often via a tendering or competitive bidding process. Procurement is used to ensure the buyer receives goods, services, or works at the best possible price when aspects such as quality, quantity, time, and location are compared. Corporations and public bodies often define processes intended to promote fair and open competition for their business while minimizing risks such as exposure to fraud and collusion.

Requirement of causation

To paraphrase Ralph L. Jones Co. v. United States, 33 Fed. Cl. 327, 331-332 (Fed. Cl. 1995):

The ultimate goal of an equitable adjustment is to do equity; [13] to achieve equity, the government contractor seeking an equitable adjustment bears the "essential burden of establishing the fundamental facts of liability, causation, and resultant injury." [14] It must show that the increased costs arose from work which was materially different from that contemplated by the parties. [15] The increased costs must be the direct and necessary result of the changes. [16]
An equitable adjustment is determined by whether the work was foreseeable based on the information before the contractor at the time of the contract. [17] "Foreseeability" in this instance refers to work that reasonably could be anticipated based on the contemplation of the parties. The question is whether the work would be a foreseeable consequence of those matters the parties "considered with continued attention," regarded thoughtfully, or "viewed . . . as probable or as an . . . intention."See Webster's New International Dictionary, 2d ed. 574 (1955).

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Federal Register</i> Official journal of the US federal government

The Federal Register is the official journal of the federal government of the United States that contains government agency rules, proposed rules, and public notices. It is published every weekday, except on federal holidays. The final rules promulgated by a federal agency and published in the Federal Register are ultimately reorganized by topic or subject matter and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which is updated annually.

Tucker Act

The Tucker Act is a federal statute of the United States by which the United States government has waived its sovereign immunity with respect to certain lawsuits.

Air rights

Air rights are the property interest in the "space" above the earth's surface. Generally speaking, owning, or renting, land or a building includes the right to use and develop the space above the land without interference by others.

Government procurement in the United States is the process by which the federal, state and local government bodies in the United States acquire goods, services, and interests in real property. In FY 2016 alone, the US Federal Government spent $461B on contracts. Contracts for federal government procurement usually involve appropriated funds spent on supplies, services, and interests in real property by and for the use of the Federal Government through purchase or lease, whether the supplies, services, or interests are already in existence or must be created, developed, demonstrated, and evaluated. See 48 C.F.R. § 2.101. Federal Government contracting has the same legal elements as contracting between private parties: a lawful purpose, competent contracting parties, an offer, an acceptance that complies with the terms of the offer, mutuality of obligation, and consideration. However, federal procurement is much more heavily regulated, subject to volumes of statutes dealing with Federal contracts and the Federal contracting process, mostly in Titles 10, 31, 40, and 41 of the United States Code.

Pauline Newman American judge

Pauline Newman is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Company, 384 U.S. 394 (1966), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "(w)hen an administrative agency is acting in a judicial capacity and resolves disputed issues of fact properly before it which the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate, the courts have not hesitated to apply res judicata to enforce repose." Utah Construction established a two-part test to determine whether res judicata effect should be given to an administrative determination. First, the agency proceeding must be examined to determine whether the agency was "acting in a judicial capacity" and whether the parties had "an adequate opportunity to litigate" the issues before the agency. Second, the general rules of res judicata must be applied to the case. Not all administrative adjudications, and not all judicial determinations, are entitled to res judicata effect. For the principles of res judicata to apply, administrative determinations, like court judgments, must be valid, final and on the merits.

In government contracting, a Contract Adjustment Board is a department board at the Secretariat level which deals with disputes and requests for extraordinary relief under Public Law 85-804 of Aug. 28, 1958.

KECO Industries, Inc. v. United States, 176 Ct. Cl. 983, 998, was a case before the United States Court of Claims dealing with the procedure for handling contract adjustments when a contractor provides a substitution.

CEMS, Inc. v. United States, 59 Fed. Cl. 168 was a government contracting suit before the United States Court of Federal Claims. It deals with the requirements for a contractor to receive an equitable adjustment for work outside the contract.

<i>G. L. Christian and Associates v. United States</i>

G.L. Christian and associates v. United States is a 1963 United States Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) court case which has become known as the Christian Doctrine. The case held that standard clauses established by regulations may be considered as being in every Federal contract. Because the FAR is the law, and government contractors are presumed to be familiar with the FAR, a mandatory clause that expresses a significant or deeply ingrained strand of public procurement policy will be incorporated into a Government contract by operation of law, even if the parties intentionally omitted it.

<i>Paul v. United States</i>

Paul v. United States, 20 Cl.Ct. 236 (1990), was a Congressional reference case brought before the United States Claims Court as a result of Senate Resolution 187 of the 100th Congress' 1st Session in 1988, which referred the proposed private bill, S. 966 to the court for a report on whether Frederick Paul's claim was a legal, equitable, or gratuitous claim and what amount was legally or equitably due him by the United States. Paul claimed he was due additional money from the government for his work with the native Inuit of Alaska that led to the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in 1971 and the creation of the modern borough system of local government in Alaska.

Superior knowledge doctrine is a principle in United States contract law. The doctrine states that the government must disclose to a contractor otherwise unavailable information that is vital to contract performance.

Aboriginal title in the United States First country to recognize aboriginal title

The United States was the first jurisdiction to acknowledge the common law doctrine of aboriginal title. Native American tribes and nations establish aboriginal title by actual, continuous, and exclusive use and occupancy for a "long time." Individuals may also establish aboriginal title, if their ancestors held title as individuals. Unlike other jurisdictions, the content of aboriginal title is not limited to historical or traditional land uses. Aboriginal title may not be alienated, except to the federal government or with the approval of Congress. Aboriginal title is distinct from the lands Native Americans own in fee simple and occupy under federal trust.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began regulating greenhouse gases (GHGs) under the Clean Air Act from mobile and stationary sources of air pollution for the first time on January 2, 2011. Standards for mobile sources have been established pursuant to Section 202 of the CAA, and GHGs from stationary sources are currently controlled under the authority of Part C of Title I of the Act. The basis for regulations was upheld in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in June 2012.

The Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13, makes state law applicable to conduct occurring on lands reserved or acquired by the Federal government as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 7(3), when the act or omission is not made punishable by an enactment of Congress.

Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, 567 U.S. 182 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the United States government, when it enters into a contract with a Native American (Indian) tribe for services, must pay contracts in full, even if congress has not appropriated enough money to pay all tribal contractors. The case was litigated over a period of 22 years, beginning in 1990, until it was decided in 2012.

References

  1. ↑ 4-15 Construction Law P 15.03
  2. ↑ J.F. Shea Co. v. United States, 10 Cl. Ct. 620 (1986) . Where a contract was bid in a lump sum, the equitable adjustment for substitution of work is computed by the following formula: (1) Adjusted contract price; (2) Less projected cost without changed conditions; (3) Plus actual cost under changed conditions; (4) Plus reasonable profit/overhead computed in accordance with governing regulations on difference between 2 and 3.
  3. ↑ 4-15 Construction Law P 15.03
  4. ↑ The FAR were published at 48 Fed. Reg. 42,102
  5. ↑ Agency regulations implementing the FAR are as follows: Agency for International Development (AID), 49 Fed. Reg. 13,236 (1984) ; Department of Commerce, 49 Fed. Reg. 12,956 (1984) ; Department of Defense, 49 Fed. Reg. 11,302 (1984) ; Department of Energy, 49 Fed. Reg. 11,922 (1984) ; Environmental Protection Agency, 49 Fed. Reg. 8834 (1984) ; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 49 Fed. Reg. 12,646 (1984) ; General Services Administration, 49 Fed. Reg. 10,792 (1984) ; Department of Health and Human Services, 48 C.F.R. ch. 3; Department of Housing and Urban Development, 49 Fed. Reg. 8258 (1984) ; National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 49 Fed. Reg. 12,370 (1984) ; National Science Foundation, 48 C.F.R. ch. 25; Department of Transportation, 48 C.F.R. ch. 12; and Veterans Administration, 48 C.F.R. ch. 8.
  6. ↑ 48 Fed. Reg. 42,102 .
  7. ↑ 48 C.F.R. ch. 2.
  8. ↑ 48 C.F.R. ch. 1.
  9. ↑ 41 U.S.C. §§ 601-613. See also In re Liberty Constr., 9 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 1993) (the federal district courts have subject matter jurisdiction in suits against the SBA, even after the passage of the Contract Disputes Act, because the SBA's "sue and be sued" provision independently confers jurisdiction).
  10. ↑ Pub. L. No. 97-164, 96 Stat. 25 (Apr. 2, 1982).
  11. ↑ 41 U.S.C. §§ 251 and 253.
  12. ↑ See AT&T Communications, Inc. v. Wiltel, Inc., 1 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (The CICA does not prevent modifications to a contract if the modifications are not outside the scope of the original contract); Birch & Davis Int'l, Inc. v. Christopher, 4 F.3d 970 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (CICA and FAR preclude the elimination of a bidder as not in competitive range if such bidder has a "reasonable chance" that it will be selected); Rapides Regional Medical Ctr. v. Secretary, 974 F.2d 565 (5th Cir. 1992) (defining "procurement" as the term applies to the CICA).
  13. ↑ General Dynamics Corp. v. United States. 218 Ct. Cl. 40, 56, 585 F.2d 457 (1978).
  14. ↑ Wunderlich Contracting Co. v. United States, 351 F.2d 956, 968-969 (Ct. Cl. 1965)
  15. ↑ Mojave Enterprises v. United States 3 Cl. Ct. 353, 357 (1983); Miller Elevator Co., Inc. v. United States 30 Fed. Cl. 662, 678 (1994).
  16. ↑ Johns-Manville v. United States, 12 Cl. Ct. 1, 33 (1987) (citations omitted).
  17. ↑ See Johns-Manville v. United States, 12 Cl. Ct. 1, 33 (1987); Sterling Millwrights v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct. 49, 72 (1992); Mojave Enterprises, 3 Cl. Ct. at 357.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.