Practical application of adr focus session contracts
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 54

PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF ADR FOCUS SESSION: Contracts PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 60 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF ADR FOCUS SESSION: Contracts. Presented by: Justice Robert J . Torres, Supreme Court of Guam James F. Nagle, Oles Morrison Rinker & Baker LLC and John Thos. Brown, Author, Guam, Procurement Process Primer at the Department of Interior, Office of Insular Affairs

Download Presentation

PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF ADR FOCUS SESSION: Contracts

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Practical application of adr focus session contracts

PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF ADR FOCUS SESSION: Contracts

Presented by:

Justice Robert J . Torres, Supreme Court of Guam

James F. Nagle, Oles Morrison Rinker & Baker LLC

and John Thos. Brown, Author, Guam, Procurement Process Primer

at the

Department of Interior, Office of Insular Affairs

ADR Conference

San Francisco, CA

May 18-19, 2011


Outline of presentation

Outline Of Presentation

  • Jim Nagle – ADR Act of 1996 /FAR ( federal scheme )

  • John Thos. Brown – ADR / Local Procurement ( GovGuam)

  • JRJT – Guam Military build up ;DOD ADR Policy , DON and USAF


Objectives

Objectives

Analyze the benefits of ADR in government contracting (Federal and Local)

Discuss procedural requirements and practical considerations of ADR methods

Illustrate the advantages through successful ADR cases


Practical application of adr focus session contracts

“The notion that most people want black-robed judges, well-dressed lawyers, and fine paneled courtrooms as the setting to resolve their dispute is not correct. People with problems, like people with pains, want relief, and they want it as quickly and inexpensively as possible."

Warren E. Burger,

former Chief Justice United States Supreme Court


Commitment to adr in government contracting

Commitment to ADR in Government Contracting

  • ADR Act of 1996 intended to extend use of ADR methods from private industry and the judicial system to government agency use

  • Perceived benefits:

    • Greater efficiency

    • lower costs

    • more informal procedures

    • better continuing relationships

    • consensual solutions


Commitment to adr

Commitment to ADR

  • Guam Executive Order No. 2004-22 encourages government of Guam agencies to include mediation and arbitration clauses in contracts.

  • Guam Public Law 27-81 (April 30, 2004) enacted the Guam International Arbitration Law at Title 7 Guam Code Annotated:

    • Chapter 42A “Guam International Arbitration Chapter”

    • Chapter 42B “Court-Referred Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution”

    • Chapter 43A “Guam Mediation Chapter”

    • Chapter 43B “Court-Referred Mediation”


Alternative dispute resolution procedures

Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures

Presented by Panelist James F. Nagle

JAMS

[email protected]


Practical application of adr focus session contracts

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Procedures

  • ADR Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 571 et seq.

  • Executive Order 12988 (1996)

    • Partnering

    • Mediation

    • Binding arbitration (award final 30 days after service but may be extended 30 days)

    • Nonbinding arbitration

    • Settlement judge (Board judge will act as mediator)

    • Mini-trial


Far 33 210

FAR 33.210

  • “Contracting Officers are authorized to use ADR procedures to resolve claims.”

  • http://www.usdoj.gov/ar/guidance.html


Far 33 214

FAR 33.214

  • If the CO rejects a contractor’s request for ADR, the CO must provide the contractor with explanation explaining why ADR is inappropriate . But see 5 U.S.C. 581(b)(1)

  • If a contractor rejects an agency request for ADR, the contractor must inform the agency in writing of the specific reasons for rejection

  • ADR may be used at any time that the contracting officer has authority


Far 33 214 continued

FAR 33.214 (Continued)

  • A neutral person may be used

  • Confidentiality shall be protected

  • COs have flexibility to select the appropriate ADR procedure—the agreement must be in writing and must specify a maximum award that may be issued by the arbitrator

  • Binding arbitration only as allowed by agency guidelines


Adr between the prime general contractor and the government is extremely common

ADR Between the Prime/General Contractor and the Government is Extremely Common

  • Normally with the judge from the Board of Contract Appeals –the settlement judge

    •Settlement judge may be the hearing judge but there are problems with that

    •Free

    •Objective

    •Authoritative


Adr between a prime general contractor and a subcontractor typically not a sitting board judge

ADR Between a Prime/General Contractor and a Subcontractor, Typically Not a Sitting Board Judge

  • Possibly retired judge or any other knowledgeable arbitrator

  • What law applies

    • Federal Procurement Law

    • Even if not Federal Procurement Law, because of flow down clauses, federal concepts will often have to be discussed such as equitable adjustment, cost allowability


Practical application of adr focus session contracts

  • Arbitrator’s decisions between a prime and subcontractor are not normally binding on the government. FAR 44. But see FAR 49.108-5(c),Recognition of judgments and arbitration awards.:


Practical application of adr focus session contracts

FAR 49.108-5 (c)

(c) When a contractor and a subcontractor submit the subcontractor’s settlement proposal to arbitration under any applicable law or contract provision, the TCO shall recognize the arbitration award as the cost of settling the proposal of the contractor to the same extent and under the same conditions as in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.

  • However, they can be persuasive in determining whether costs are allowable


Practical application of adr focus session contracts

Informal Dispute Processes in the Guam Procurement Law*

* Based on the ABA Model Procurement Code

Presented by Panelist John Thos. Brown

[email protected]

Author, Guam Procurement Process Primer


Application of guam procurement law in federal context

Application of Guam Procurement Law in Federal Context

  • 5 GCA § 5004:

    • This Chapter shall apply to every expenditure of public funds irrespective of their source, including federal assistance funds, by this Territory, acting through a governmental body, under any contract


Application of guam procurement law in federal context cont d

Application of Guam Procurement Law in Federal Context (cont’d)

32 CFR § 33.36 Procurement.

• (a) When procuring property and services under a grant, a State will follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds.

• (b) (1) Grantees and subgrantees will use their own procurement procedures which reflect applicable State and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable Federal law and the standards identified in this section.


Solicitation disputes

Solicitation Disputes

5 GCA § 5425. Authority to Resolve Protested Solicitations and Awards.

(b) Authority to Resolve Protests. The Chief Procurement Officer, the Director of Public Works, the head of a purchasing agency, or a designee of one of these officers shall have the authority, prior to the commencement of an action in court concerning the controversy, to settle and resolve a protest of an aggrieved bidder, offeror, or contractor, actualor prospective, concerning the solicitation or award of a contract. This authority shall be exercised in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Policy Office*.

*There are no regulations promulgated for a mutual resolution of solicitation controversies.


Contract disputes

Contract Disputes

5 GCA § 5427. Authority to Resolve Contract and Breach of Contract Controversies.

§ 5427(a) Applicability. This Section applies to controversies between the Territory and a contractor and which arise under, or by virtue of, a contract between them. This includes without limitation controversies based upon breach of contract, mistake, misrepresentation, or other cause for contract modification or rescission.


Contract disputes con t

Contract Disputes (con’t)

5 GCA 5427(b) Authority to Resolve Controversy

  • The Chief Procurement Officer, the Director of Public Works, the head of a purchasing agency, or a designee of one of these officers is authorized, prior to commencement of an action in a court concerning the controversy, to settle and resolve a controversy described in Subsection (a) of this Section.

  • This authority shall be exercised in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Policy Office.


Regulatory scheme to resolve contract disputes

Regulatory Scheme to Resolve Contract Disputes

Policy

2 GAR § 9103(a)(1):

It is the territory's policy to try to resolve all [contract] controversies by mutual agreement without litigation.


Regulatory scheme to resolve contract disputes cont d

Regulatory Scheme to Resolve Contract Disputes (cont’d)

• In appropriate circumstances, informal discussions between the parties can aid in the resolution of differences by mutual agreement and are encouraged.

• If such informal discussions do not resolve the controversy, individuals who have not participated substantially in the matter in controversy may be brought in to conduct discussions if this is feasible.

• Independent committees and panels which review controversies expeditiously and informally with a view to fair settlement possibilities also are encouraged at this stage.


Regulatory scheme to resolve contract disputes cont d1

Regulatory Scheme to Resolve Contract Disputes (cont’d)

2 GAR 1903(b) Scope of Regulation.

5 GCA §5427 of the Guam Procurement Act is applicable to controversies between the territory and a contractor which arise under, or by virtue of, a contract between them.

This includes without limitation controversies based upon breach of contract, mistake, misrepresentation, or other cause for contract modification, reformation, or rescission.

The word controversy is meant to be broad and all-encompassing. It includes the full spectrum of disagreements from pricing of routine contract changes to claims of breach of contract.


Regulatory scheme to resolve contract disputes cont d2

Regulatory Scheme to Resolve Contract Disputes (cont’d)

2 GAR 1903(c) Prior Approval of Contract Settlements.

The settlement or resolution of controversies involving claims is subject to the Government Claims Act.


Guam superior court jurisdiction of procurement

Guam Superior Court Jurisdiction of Procurement

5 GCA § 5480.

•(a) The Superior Court shall have jurisdiction over an action between the Territory and a bidder, offeror, or contractor, either actual or prospective, to determine whether a solicitation or award of a contract is in accordance with the statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the solicitation.

•The Superior Court shall have such jurisdiction in actions at law or in equity, and whether the actions are for monetary damages or for declaratory, or other equitable relief.

•(f) All actions permitted by this Article shall be conducted as provided in the Government Claims Act.


Pacific rock i ii facts

Pacific Rock I & II Facts

  • Pacific Rock filed suit under the Government Claims Act praying for final payment of, and an equitable adjustment to, the contract sum of a contract procured pursuant to the Procurement Law.

  • The trial court invoked jurisdiction under the Government Claims Act and awarded Pacific Rock $219,682.34 for cost overruns and $284,363.00 owing under the original contract, as well as prejudgment interest and post-judgment interest.


Practical application of adr focus session contracts

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

Filed: June 2, 2000

PACIFIC ROCK CORPORATION (“Pacific Rock I”),

Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,

a department of the Executive Branch

of the Government of Guam,

an unincorporated Territory of the

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellant

2000 Guam 19


Pacific rock i

Pacific Rock I

“We hold that the Procurement Law controls actions against the Government of Guam for contracts procured under the statute and find that PRC failed to timely file its claim at the Superior Court, leaving the court without jurisdiction to decide the case. Accordingly, the judgment in favor of PRC is vacated.”

-- Supreme Court of Guam


Practical application of adr focus session contracts

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

Filed: November 7, 2001

PACIFIC ROCK CORPORATION (“Pacific Rock II”)

Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,

a department of the Executive Branch

of the Government of Guam,

an unincorporated Territory of the

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Defendant-Appellant

2001 Guam 21


Pacific rock ii

Pacific Rock II

“Today, we hold that the Procurement Law controls actions against the Government of Guam for contracts procured under the statute, however, in breach of contract suits where monetary relief is sought, the Procurement Law serves as the final administrative remedy that is a prerequisite to filing a claim pursuant to the Claims Act.”

-- Guam Supreme Court


Adr and implications for military buildup on guam

ADR and Implications for Military Buildup on Guam

Presented by Panelist Justice Robert J. Torres

Justice, Guam Supreme Court


Guam build up

Guam Build Up

• Relocate ≈ 8000 Marines and their family members from Okinawa to Guam

• Establish pier for transient CVN

• Position Army AMD Task Force on Guam≈ 600 soldiers and their family members

•Establish Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Hub on Guam


International agreement

International Agreement

• USG and GOJ Agreement signed Feb 09

• Reaffirms program commitment by both governments


Infrastructure upgrades

Infrastructure Upgrades

  • Current systems do not meet future requirements

  • Upgrade Guam’s utility system, roads and commercial port

  • Wharf upgrades , site preparation and facilities construction

  • Other DoD programs to improve force readiness and QOL


Military buildup brings contracts and potential disputes

Military Buildup Brings Contracts…And Potential Disputes …

  • PROJECTS FROM 2009-PRESENT: More than 1.5 Billion Appropriated

  • $73M: design-build of aircraft parking apron at Andersen

  • $9.1M: construction of water and wastewater utility services North Ramp of AAFB

  • $5.3M: design-build MACC for construction of new communications duct bank at AAFB

  • $400M Contract to Design-Build Multiple Award Construction Contract for Renovation/ Modernization of Government Shore based facilities in Guam


Department of defense

Department of Defense

  • The Department of Defense actively supports use of ADR techniques

  • DoD Directive 5145.5 "establishes a framework for encouraging the expanded use of ADR

  • Department of Defense policy that "[a]ll DoD Components shall use ADR techniques as an alternative to litigation or formal administrative proceedings whenever appropriate


United states air force adr procedures

United States Air ForceADR Procedures

USAF Sample Agreement for Utilizing ADR

hhttp://www.adr.af.mil/


Air force policy directive 51 12

AIR FORCE POLICY DIRECTIVE 51-12

  • Establishes policy for Air Force Alternative Dispute Resolution Program

  • Policy to voluntarily use ADR to the maximum extent practicable to resolve disputes at the earliest stage feasible, by the fastest and least expensive method possible, and at the lowest possible organizational level


United states air force adr procedures1

United States Air ForceADR Procedures

  • Factors to consider in assessing use of ADR

  • Three-part test:

    • What are our business objectives?

    • Why did negotiations reach an impasse?

    • Are there pragmatic concerns about whether ADR will work?


Department of the navy don

Department of the Navy (DON)


Secnavinst 5800 15 use of binding arbitration

SECNAVINST 5800.15, Use of Binding Arbitration

  • Authorizes contracting officers to use binding arbitration to resolve contractual issues

  • Binding Arbitration should be considered at the inception of an issue in controversy

  • Binding arbitration is voluntary


Decision to arbitrate

Decision to Arbitrate

  • DON’s policy is to use ADR to the maximum extent practicable, at the earliest stages

  • Contracts cannot have a mandatory arbitration clause at time of award. Results in “ad hoc arbitration,” rather than “permanent arbitration.”

  • Consider not using it for the six reasons under 5 U.S.C. § 572(b), plus if the matter pertains to fraud, or is outside the scope of the instruction.


Arbitration agreement

Arbitration Agreement

  • MUST establish a cap on the maximum award that may be issued

  • MUST ELIMINATE authority to award:

    • Costs and attorney fees; and,

    • Punitive, consequential, exemplary or special damages

  • The agreement should define:

    • The scope of discovery;

    • The date and length of the hearing, if any; and,

    • The expected level of briefing.


Hearings

Hearings

  • Any party is entitled to make a record.

  • Parties are entitled to present evidence and be heard.

  • Arbitrators have discretion regarding the weight they give the evidence.


Awards

Awards

  • Awards shall briefly discuss factual and legal bases for award, but formal findings of fact, and determinations of law not required

  • Awards are final and binding

  • Awards do not establish legal precedent of general applicability, nor can they be used for collateral estoppel

  • Awards can be cited as precedent and for res judicata in factually related proceedings

  • Awards should be incorporated into the contract as a modification


Review

Review

Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)

Agreements to arbitrate enforced under 9 USC § 4.

9 USC § 9 can be used for “confirmation.”

9 USC § 10 has the standards to vacate an award:

Fraud

Evident partiality

Misconduct in scheduling or refusing to consider evidence

Exceed powers

9 USC § 12 provides 3 months to file for review.

ADRA Amendments to FAA

A third party may challenge the use of arbitration if it can show that one of the six factors in 5 USC § 572 apply. See 9 USC § 10(c).

ADRA Amendments to CDA

Review is under FAA, but the court “may set aside or limit any award that is found to violate limitations imposed by Federal statute.”


Schedule considerations

Schedule Considerations

Current Process

Contracting Officer review and final decision (COFD)

De novo appeal to ASBCA or COFC. Compulsory discovery and relatively formal hearing

Appellate review of law & factual basis

Issue impasse

Claim Filed

Binding Arbitration Process

Arbitration eliminates the COFD, reduces discovery and hearing burdens, and greatly limits appellate review.

Issue impasse

Limited discovery & hearing, followed by arbitrator’s award

Dist. Ct review on very narrow grounds

Agree to arbitration

Arbitration processes should be shorter than, or equal to, a COFD review period on similar issues.


Anticipated uses of adr

Anticipated Uses of ADR

  • Small claims

  • Technical Issues

  • Issues requiring rapid resolution:

    • To clarify obligations in long term contracts

    • To avoid accumulation of similar claims

    • To mitigate project delay or time related damages


Adr successes

ADR Successes

  • $50M claim filed by Centrex Construction for dispute over Portsmouth Naval Hospital

  • Parties tailored ADR process to fit their needs

  • Settlement was mutually beneficial and salvaged relationship

Centrex Construction Case


Adr successes1

ADR Successes

  • Lockheed disputed Navy’s $25 million final price determination claim

  • Parties tailored ADR process to fit their needs

    • Limited discovery

    • Use of internal senior officials

  • Even if agreement is not reached on all issues, “success” in other areas

Lockheed/P-3 Case


Thank you

Thank You!


  • Login