Teaming Agreement Exclusivity

Share On GoogleShare On FacebookShare On Twitter

More recently, the Virginia Supreme Court considered CGI Fed. Inc., v. FCi Fed, Inc., Record No. 170617 (Va. S. Ct. 2018), with a team agreement that provided for a 41% share of work for the proposed subcontractors. Unbeknownst to the subcontractor, the principal contractor submitted a revised proposal proposing 18% work for the proposed subcontractor. After the government awarded the contract to the main contractor, the parties entered into subcontracting negotiations in which the principal contractor refused to offer a share of work of more than 22%. The Virginia Supreme Court found that the formation of a subcontracting depended on the success of future negotiations and that no binding agreement had therefore been reached despite the defined share of work. Since teaming often takes place very early in the procurement process, when the requirements are still largely undefined, it is a matter for the main contractors to retain sufficient flexibility to adapt their strategy when recruitment requirements are consolidated. Similarly, the main contractors are solely responsible for the performance risk in awarding contracts.

However, subcontractors may also be required to make significant investments with the principal contractor as part of the contract follow-up and often accept exclusivity provisions that prevent the subcontractor from participating in the requirement with other teams, so that they must ensure that their interests are protected. To meet these needs, a road transport centre is required that contains provisions specific enough to be applicable, but which leaves the main contractor room to submit a winning proposal and any subsequent negotiations with the customer. As with all contractual disputes, each case deals with the specific language of the agreement, and the law varies by state, but in general, most team agreements are established that the parties submit a proposal together and agree to enter into subcontracting negotiations in good faith when awarding a contract to the principal contractor. The weight of the case law shows that a promise of good faith negotiation is not enough to create a binding treaty. In addition, the conditions of a team agreement must be very specific to create a post-attribution engagement in most countries. Exclusive team agreements and other cooperations between competitors, such as joint ventures. B, have been increasingly controlled over the past 18 months. During this period, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued guidelines on exclusive team agreements and what federal officials should do in response to exclusive anti-competitive team agreements. In addition, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have jointly published a draft document entitled « Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors » which, if ultimately adopted, « will set out the agency`s policy on cartels and abuse of dominance on competition issues raised by cooperation between competitors. » The provisions of these documents have a significant impact on team agreements and similar cooperation. The benefits of getting subs to register exclusively are obvious; this means that no one else can use their skills and experience in their proposal. However, if a sub has a real differentiation value, it is probably aware of it and the Primus must deserve its exclusivity.

A strong PWin and an appropriate working group, supported in the past to honour these agreements, is the approach to managing team agreements that will best encourage them to register as an exclusive member of the team.