Chutzpah Goes Unrewarded
Feb.24.2006
The contractor in Armour of Am. v. U.S. (CFC Feb. 14, 2006, http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Damich/06/ DAMICH.Armour.pdf) alleged "no cause of action" when it argued that it should not have been terminated for default when it was obvious from its offer that it could not meet the mandatory requirements of the RFP/contract and the FAR required the agency to reject nonconforming offers. Still alive, though, is the issue of whether the agency breached its good faith duties by making the award with actual knowledge of the nonconformity and then defaulting early on in the program.
Please contact website@crowell.com for more information.