Government Contracts

$19.95

Add to cart
Essay #: 063366
Total text length is 5,514 characters (approximately 3.8 pages).

Excerpts from the Paper

The beginning:
Government Contracts
Question No. 1
The cases of Ross Const. Corp. v. United States, 392 F.2d 984 (1968), Anthony P. Miller, Inc., v. United States, 348 F.2d 475 (1965) and Leiter v. United States, 271 U.S. 204, 46 S.Ct. 477, 70 L.Ed. 906 (1926), are all examples of instances in which a contractor performed work beyond the allocation limits and was subsequently not paid on that basis.
The Anti-Deficiency Act and the Capehart Act both limit the ability of a government agency to pay for a contract beyond its appropriated amount. I believe that the contractor is aware of the amount appropriated and should not be entitled to exceed this amount of draw additional, unallocated public funds. These rules encourage budget and time management. If...
The end:
.....particularly when read in conjunction with 1 U.S.C.A. § 1, has been construed to act as a kind of Statute of Frauds for federal government contracts. Section 1501(a) requires documentary evidence for government obligations.
References
1 U.S.C.A. § 1.
31 U.S.C.A. § 1501(a).
48 CFR 31.201-1.
48 CFR 31.201-4.
Anthony P. Miller, Inc., v. United States, 348 F.2d 475
(1965).
Control Data Corp., ASBCA 74-1 BCA 10,410 (1973).
G.L. Christian & Associates v. United States, 312 F.2d 418,
424 (Ct.Cl. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 954, 84 S.Ct. 444, 11 L.Ed.2d 314 (1963).
Leiter v. United States, 271 U.S. 204, 46 S.Ct. 477, 70
L.Ed. 906 (1926).
Metcalf Const. Co. v. U.S., 53 Fed.Cl. 617 (2002).
Ross Const. Corp. v. United States, 392 F.2d 984 (1968).