DCAA Relations, Department of Defense News, Running Your Business

I wonder if that applies to DCAA Audit Findings?

A recent appeals board decision (ASBCA No. 58063) made the following interesting statements:

“The motion reasserts contentions that any such contract
lacked an express Disputes clause, which is an essential foundation for our jurisdiction
over WMA TA contractual disputes. In determining that we were empowered to
resolve whether Delta’s interactions and communications with WMATA gave rise to
the alleged implied-in-fact contract, we held that, if appellant’s allegations are proven,
WMATA’s acquisition procedures mandated incorporation of the Disputes clause.”


“However, the absence of an express Disputes clause in the purchase order is
irrelevant. Whether the alleged implied-in-fact contract is viewed as a discrete,
independent agreement or as an ancillary implied term of the purchase agreement, the
clause is required by the WMATA Procurement Manual (WPM) (2004).”

The Point?  Polices and Procedures govern simply by the fact of their existence, enforcement is secondary.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s