Options Clause
Started by khm9p4 · May 26, 2021 · 3 replies
- kOriginal post
khm9p4
May 26, 2021 · 5y ago
Is the 52.217-9 clause covered by the Christian Doctrine?
- j
ji20874
May 26, 2021 · 5y ago
Do you have a contract with options, but no supporting clause?
Do the conditions at FAR 17.208(g)(1) - (3) exist, and did those conditions exist at the time the contract was formed?
- V
Vern Edwards
May 26, 2021 · 5y ago
khm9p4 said:
Is the 52.217-9 clause covered by the Christian Doctrine?
No, because 52.217-9 is not a mandatory clause. It is a clause to be used by choice; see FAR 17.208(g). There is no legal requirement that a contract include options.
See also Life Machines Corp. v. U.S., 143 Fed. Cl. 267 (2019):
Quote
As stated by a judge of this court, under the Christian doctrine, “mandatory” “regulations are law, binding on the contract parties when otherwise applicable to the contract, and need not be physically incorporated into the contract.” Bay Cty., Fla. v. United States, 112 Fed.Cl. 195, 203 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), recons. denied, 2013 WL 5346523 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2013), aff'd, 796 F.3d 1369 (2015); see also Enron Fed. Sols., Inc. v. United States, 80 Fed.Cl. 382, 392 n.11 (2008) (stating that, under the Christian doctrine, “parties to a government contract are deemed to have agreed to contract terms required by law to be included in the contract” (citation omitted)); IBI Sec. Serv., Inc. v. United States, 19 Cl. Ct. 106, 109 (1989) (“The Christian doctrine is available only when relevant statutory or regulatory provisions are required to be included in an agency's contracts.” (citations omitted)), aff'd, 918 F.2d 188 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Application of the Christian doctrine does not depend on whether the omission of a mandatory contract clause was intentional or inadvertent. See Tolliver Grp., Inc. v. United States, 140 Fed.Cl. 520, 529 (2018) (“The [Christian] doctrine turns on whether the contract omits a mandatory clause, not on whether the omission was intentional or inadvertent.” (citing Bay Cty., Fla. v. United States, 112 Fed.Cl. at 202)); see also S.J. Amoroso Constr. Co. v. United States, 12 F.3d at 1075.
- R
Retreadfed
May 26, 2021 · 5y ago
In addition to what Vern wrote concerning mandatory clauses, see https://www.asbca.mil/Decisions/2000/49827.pdf.