Blanket Purchase Order Does Not Equal Task Order Contract
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 01.19.10
In C & B Constr., Inc. (Jan. 6, 2010), GAO explained that it had jurisdiction to review protests of task orders issued under Blanket Purchase Agreements ("BPA"), even if the task order is valued less than $10 million (the statutory limit for GAO to review protests of task or delivery order contracts), because BPAs are different from task or delivery order contracts. GAO then sustained the protest because the source selection decision was based on numerical scores without adequate substantive discussion.
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.13.26
Supreme Court Confirms Contractual Loss of Bargain Without Repudiatory Breach
English law has long treated the choice between terminating for repudiatory breach and exercising a contractual termination right as consequential. Under the Financings[1] causation principle, a party exercising a contractual right for a non-repudiatory breach could recover losses accrued to the date of termination — but nothing more. Loss of bargain was out of reach unless the breach went to the root of the contract. A practical workaround, confirmed in Lombard,[2] was to designate the relevant obligation as a condition, elevating any breach to repudiatory status, but that device carries significant strategic risk if the termination is later found to have been wrongful.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 08.12.26
Developments in Canadian Investment Treaty Practice: New FIPA Between Canada and UAE in Force
Client Alert | 6 min read | 08.11.26
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.10.26
