Why do you think the Termination for Default clauses do not say the Contracting Officer must terminate the contract?

By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 08:55 am:

Anonymous:

Are you asking why the clauses do not say that it's the contracting officer who must terminate, rather than anybody else, or are you asking why the clauses do not say that the contracting officer must terminate the contract when the contract is in default?

If your question is the first, I don't know why the clauses don't say that its contracting officers who do the terminating. But FAR 49.101(a) makes it pretty clear that contracting officers are the ones who terminate contracts. It says that the clauses "authorize contracting officers" to terminate contracts. Also, FAR 1.602-1(a) says that contracting officers are authorized to terminate contracts. It doesn't mention anybody else.

If your question is the second, I suppose that the reason is to give agencies some latitude.

By joel hoffman on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 10:38 pm:

Vern, I agree with you. Your second point is on target. We have negotiated alternatives to termination in some cases of default. happy sails! joel

By bob antonio on Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 07:43 am:

Years ago, I seem to remember reading the policy in FAR Part 49 as stating that it is the policy to reach a no-cost settlement when possible. If not possible, a termination is appropriate. The current FAR 49.101 (b) words it a bit differently.

The FAR applies common sense to the issue by saying in so many words, "if you can talk yourself out of a fight, do it."

Under the right circumstances and under the right contract type, a termination can become a fight for survival for a contractor. Under another circumstance and contract type, future potential fee may be an issue. Under the right circumstances, the government and the contractor simply have had enough of each others' nonsense and they are just happy to be rid of each other.