LEG 440 Contract and Procurement Law Week 9 Followup Question 1

/in /by

LEG 440 Contract and Procurement Law Week 9 Followup Question 1

Question: What is the language that is commonly used for this process and what is the rationale behind it? Please expound on your posts to also include the language and provision of the FAR that supports your position. Also, discuss what are the various ways that delays come about and how are they classified?

Background: 

The contractor has the right to be paid the amounts of money as stipulated in the contract between both parties. If not so, the contractor has the right to sue the client for them to be paid for the damages incurred during the damages (Dosi & Moretto, 2015). The contractor can, therefore, file for claims as well as or even offer a negotiation procedure with the client. On the other hand, the client has the right to ask for a negotiation outside the court. As such, the contractor is obliged to agree to a negotiation instead of filing claims with the court. The two will, therefore, the contact agreements and resolve their dispute without involving contact officers. This will include their remedies for the damages to be able to reach a consensus.

The damages will be assessed by outlining the loss incurred during the process of delivering the contract (Dosi & Moretto, 2015). As such, the charges to paid for will include all the money used to in the procedure on honoring the contract. Apart from the financial losses, the charges will also include compensation for the time duration wasted when delivering the contract. Therefore, the claims will be a combination of the time wasted and the financial loss. However, the assessment will be conducted in such a way that the total will not exceed the recommended dollar threshold. Therefore, the intervention of a contract dispute officer will be needed to help determine the limits for the damages.

Reference

Dosi, C., & Moretto, M. (2015). Procurement with unenforceable contract time and the law of liquidated damages. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 31(1), 160-186.