Overview
This section defines the jurisdictional boundaries and procedural relationship between extraordinary contractual actions under Public Law 85-804 and standard claims under the Disputes statute, specifically regarding contract rescission and reformation.
Key Rules
- Separation of Authority: Requests for relief under Pub. L. 85-804 are not considered "claims" under the Disputes statute and must be processed according to FAR Subpart 50.1.
- Expanded CO Authority: Contracting officers (COs) now have the authority under the Disputes statute to grant rescission or reformation of a contract due to mutual mistake, a power previously reserved for Pub. L. 85-804.
- Mandatory Claim Treatment: Any contractor allegation seeking rescission or reformation to correct a mistake must be treated as a formal claim under the Disputes statute.
- Legal Counsel Requirement: Due to the legal complexity of rescission and reformation, COs must consult with legal counsel and issue formal written decisions when addressing these claims.
- Order of Precedence: A contractor cannot seek relief under Pub. L. 85-804 until the claim has first been submitted and processed under the Disputes statute; extraordinary relief is only available if other legal authorities are determined to be inadequate.
Practical Implications
- Contractors seeking to fix a clerical or mutual mistake must follow the formal CDA claim process (including certification if applicable) before attempting to seek extraordinary relief from the agency.
- For Government personnel, this section shifts the initial burden of legal interpretation to the CO and agency legal counsel, requiring a formal administrative record and written decision for mistake-based remedies that were historically handled via extraordinary administrative channels.