(a) The termination clauses or other contract clauses authorize contracting officers to terminate contracts for convenience, or for default, and to enter into settlement agreements under this regulation.
(b) The contracting officer shall terminate contracts, whether for default or convenience, only when it is in the Government's interest. The contracting officer shall effect a no-cost settlement instead of issuing a termination notice when (1) it is known that the contractor will accept one, (2) Government property was not furnished, and (3) there are no outstanding payments, debts due the Government, or other contractor obligations.
(c) When the price of the undelivered balance of the contract is less than $5,000, the contract should not normally be terminated for convenience but should be permitted to run to completion.
(d) After the contracting officer issues a notice of termination, the termination contracting officer (TCO) is responsible for negotiating any settlement with the contractor, including a no-cost settlement if appropriate. Auditors and TCO's shall promptly schedule and complete audit reviews and negotiations, giving particular attention to the need for timely action on all settlements involving small business concerns.
(e) If the same item is under contract with both large and small business concerns and it is necessary to terminate for convenience part of the units still to be delivered, preference shall be given to the continuing performance of small business contracts over large business contracts unless the chief of the contracting office determines that this is not in the Government's interest.
(f) The contracting officer is responsible for the release of excess funds resulting from the termination unless this responsibility is specifically delegated to the TCO.
[48 FR 42447, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 55 FR 52797, Dec. 21, 1990; 56 FR 67134, Dec. 27, 1991]
Notes of Decisions
Ironclad/EEI v. United States, 78 Fed. Cl. 351 (Fed. Cl. 2007).
“See 48 C.F.R. § 49.101 (b) (2006) (stating that ”[t]he contracting officer shall effect a no-cost settlement instead of issuing a termination notice” under certain circumstances).”
E&I Global Energy Servs., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019).
“Plaintiff also alleges that WAPA’s termination contracting officer failed to promptly complete audit reviews of the Isolux contract pursuant to 48 C.F.R § 49.101(d) of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (“FAR”) and failed to perform certain duties regarding termination…”
E&I Global Energy Servs., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021).
“There, in opposing the United States’ Motion to Dismiss, E&I argued that the contracting officer “failed to promptly complete audit reviews of the Isolux contract pursuant to 48 C.F.R. § 49.101 (d) of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (“FAR”) and failed to perform certain…”
Trace Sys. Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2022).
“However, the agency would still be entitled to determine in a manner consistent with the Court’s decision that, for example, it would be in its best interest to cancel the contract for the convenience of the government, see 48 C.F.R. § 49.101 , or that the needs of the…”
E&I Global Energy Servs., Inc. v. Dittmer (D.S.D. 2021).
“Once Dittmer terminated Isolux, he failed to request or mandate a post- termination inventory as required by 48 C.F.R. §§ 49.101 , 49.105, 49.402.2. Id.”
— 48 C.F.R. § 49.101(d) — 1 case
E&I Global Energy Servs., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019).
“Plaintiff also alleges that WAPA’s termination contracting officer failed to promptly complete audit reviews of the Isolux contract pursuant to 48 C.F.R § 49.101(d) of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (“FAR”) and failed to perform certain duties regarding termination…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.