By John W. Chierichella 

In 1997, the Virginia Supreme Court sent a chill down the spines of many companies operating under teaming agreements with a Virginia choice of law provision. In W.J. Schafer Associates, Inc. v. Cordant, Inc., 493 S.E. 2d 514 (Va. 1997), that court held a teaming agreement to be unenforceable on the ground that “agreements to agree in the future” are “too vague and too indefinite to be enforced.” After an initial outpouring of articles and commentaries on the future of teaming agreements under Virginia law, the dust appeared to have settled and, in 2002, the Virginia courts actually issued an affirmative injunction compelling specific performance of a teaming agreement in EG&G, Inc. v. Cube Corp., 63 Va. Cir. 634, 2002 WL 31950215 (Va. Cir. Ct. Dec. 23, 2002).Continue Reading Teaming Agreements Called Into Question Under Virginia Law

By David S. Gallacher

On September 27, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010 (Pub. L. No. 111-240). The Act is intended to free up capital by providing tax cuts for small businesses (some of which are temporary) and to promote exports of U.S. products, all with a view to stimulating the small business sector as an engine of job creation.  But, as usual, the Administration’s efforts to improve the economy through stimulus measures also give rise to new risks for companies doing business with the federal Government – whether as a prime or a subcontractor, as a large or a small business.
 Continue Reading Size Does Matter – Impacts Of The Small Business Jobs Act Of 2010

Even experienced contractors can find themselves in unfamiliar waters when delving for the first time in the world of government contracts. In many cases, the first step for a commercial company may be acting as a subcontractor (the "Subcontractor") for another company (the "Prime") that is contracting directly with the Government. Even though the Subcontractor’s contract is with the Prime and not the Government, certain federal regulations and policies may still apply and place obligations on the Subcontractor. For various reasons, including promoting federal policy and protecting itself contractually, the Government may require that certain clauses included in its contract with the Prime also be included in the subcontract between the Prime and Subcontractor. Similarly, the Prime, for reasons of consistency, to ensure that the Subcontractor’s performance will allow the Prime to meet its own contractual requirements, or to protect itself, may include provisions from the prime contract in the subcontract. Such clauses are colloquially known as "flowdown" clauses.
 Continue Reading Trimming the Fat in Government Subcontracts — Recognizing What Really Needs to Be Flowed Down by the Prime