Government Contracting Database

As a general proposition under a contract which gives the contractor broad discretion to choose the method and manner of performance, the government’s rejection of the contractor’s reasonable performance method would entitle the contractor to an equitable adjustment, although the contractor’s method may differ from the government’s subjectively intended, albeit unexpressed, performance method. See Pipe Tech, Inc., ENG BCA No. 5959, 94-2 BCA ¶ 26,649; J. Lawson Jones Constr. Co., Inc., ENG BCA No. 4363, 86-1 BCA ¶ 18,719; Caisson Corp. and Bencor Corp. of America (JV), ENG BCA No. 4005, 80-2 BCA ¶ 14,810; See also Hensel Phelps Constr. Co., Inc., ENG BCA No. 3647, 77-1 BCA ¶ 12,475; Tecon-Green (JV), ENG BCA No. 2667, 67-1 BCA ¶ 6147, aff’d, 411 F.2d 1262, 188 Ct. Cl. 15 (1969); Chris Berg, Inc. & Associates, ASBCA No. 3466, 58-1 BCA ¶ 1792.

This principle goes to the heart of the federal procurement system. Performance type contract provisions, where the contractor is left to its own devices, foster creativity and ingenuity and thereby encourage competition. The burden rests squarely with the government, as the sole drafter of the contract, to specify clearly the method of performance if only one method is desired. Hoppman Corp. v. United States, 18 Cl.Ct. 220 (1989); Singer-General Precision, Inc. v. United States, 192 Ct. Cl. 435, 447, 427 F.2d 1187, 1193 (1970); See Folk Construction Co., Inc. v. United States, 2 Cl.Ct. 681 (1983).

Keno & Sons Const. Co., ENGBCA No. 5837, 95-2 BCA ¶ 27687.

Updated: August 2, 2018