Sample Law Paper on The FAR and Contract Provisions for Protection

In most democratic countries, governments are assigned an economic role which ensures that public resources are spent in accordance with the law. For instance, government spending on roads and infrastructure has a pre-defined process of implementing such a project. In most cases, many governments use the tendering process to award huge contracts to verified contractors who are assigned to work on a given project (Kaye, Cuda & Wu, 2017). In this discussion, however, a role of a Contract’s Officer for the Department of Energy is assumed and a comprehensive contract award process requested for a power project. With reference to the Federal Acquisition Review (FAR) on the Contractor Inspection Requirements, a contract review of developing a new widget for saving on energy bills is addressed form dynamic angles.

The Standard Default Clause is an important role of the government when it comes to ensuring the public projects are implemented as defined in a legally binding contract. This clause, most fundamentally, ensures that the government- through FAR – urges contractors to adhere to the terms of reference as indicated in the quality of delivery for a government project (Howard & Cobb, 2017). Otherwise, it would be critical to state that most contractors would implement a process without adhering to fundamentals of the awarded project. For instance, a firm awarded the DOE tender would confidently delay a project claiming for more resources despite (initially) signing the contract.

From a descriptive angle, the Standard Default clause is a contract term which gives a government absolute authority to cancel in cases of contract breach by a contractor. On the other hand, a clause capturing Government Delay of Work entails administrative settlement of claims by a contractor in cases of delay or interruptions. To combine these clauses, different measures could be adopted when a dilemma of this nature becomes unavoidable. Firstly, the cause for delaying project should be evaluated and assessed to ensure that the reason provided by a contractor is worth meriting from the Government Delay of Work clause.

It would also be important to consider identifying common grounds that would ensure that both parties of the contract are satisfied with a resolution for a delay. This is an administrative approach which ensures that both parties of a contract can agree on new deadline terms and the consequences of breach (Howard & Cobb, 2017). Identifying a common ground would fall within the merit of the Standard Default Clause as well as the Government Delay of Work clause. Bringing both parties to a negotiating platform would play a critical role in motivating the completion of a project within the stipulated deadlines in terms of delivery schedule and resource requirements.

The most secure way of making a contractual change is to ensure that all items of a project as defined by contract are updated with reference to important changes. This is to state that the most critical section of making a contractual change would entail updating the documentation with content that meets the relevance of a contract’s requirements (Kaye, Cuda & Wu, 2017). This would aid in providing a reference for future professional and contractual practices and would guide the process of punitive measures proven to be a breach of contract. For instance, the financial requirements stipulated in the budget section should be updated to include new requirements that maintain the relevance of a contract.

As a contracts officer working for the Department of Energy (DOE), different measures would be adopted to ensure that improvements in the inspection procedure. According to FAR, as defined by the 52.246-1 Contractor Inspection Requirements, stakeholder representation is a key attribute of a successful contracting practice (Hoeft, et al. 2016). Consequently, it would be critical to address an improvement based on stakeholder representation as a means of improving efficiency during project implementation of a contract. Improvement areas would include increasing the number of stakeholder meetings before, during and after contract award to a particular bidder. This will be critical in setting a positive onset of a contract as the project will promote cooperation and coordination during the actual implementation.

Similarly, stakeholder participation would also be an important improvement area with reference to the 52.246-1 Contractor Inspection Requirements. Logically, it would be common to find individuals – who are assigned duties of stakeholder representation – not contribute to important meetings (Kaye, Cuda & Wu, 2017). This is an inefficient way of collaborating on a project whose contract worth is valued at millions of dollars. Therefore, it would be essential to ensure that the constitution is a mandatory expectation from all stakeholders. This could be done in the form of verbal contribution or written text expelling the reasoning behind an argument critical to a contract. Since most government projects require public participation, as an inspection officer, it would be vital to ensure that all necessary public voices are heard before implementing a project.  If any participation requirement is omitted or ignored by an inspection officer, it would be possible to encounter internal wrangles of claims that a section of stakeholders was not involved in a decision making process.

 

 

 

 

 

References

Hoeft, M., Lee, D., Chakrabarti, A., & De Lange, V. (2016). East Bay Municipal Utility   District’s Multi-faceted Outfall Monitoring and Inspection Program. Proceedings of the       Water Environment Federation2016(7), 2395-2405.

Howard, R. M., & Cobb, S. T. (2017). VICTORY THROUGH PRODUCTION: ARE LEGACY           COSTS OF WAR SCUTTLING THE” GOCO MODEL”?. Public Contract Law          Journal46(2), 259.

Kaye, M. F., Cuda, D. L., & Wu, K. Y. (2017). Report on Contractual Flow Down Provisions in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) (No. IDA-P-8655, IDA/HQ-H-17-000453). Institute for Defense          Analyses Alexandria.