About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

49 Procurement Law. 1 (2013-2014)

handle is hein.journals/procurlw49 and id is 1 raw text is: The ASBCA's Path to the Mega ADR in Computer Sciences Corporation By REBA ANN PAGE AND PAUL WILLIAMS Reba Ann Page Paul Williams A recent mediation at the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) has garnered considerable attention for the significant dollar amount at stake, the complexity of the issues, and the innovative use of com- bined (hybrid) dispute resolution procedures. This ar- ticle examines the resolution of controversies underlying the appeals of Computer Sciences Corporation, ASBCA Nos. 56162-56175 (CSC), as well as undocketed matters arising under the same contract, which, together, were valued in excess of $2 billion dollars. The article ex- amines the growth and maturation of alternate dispute resolution (ADR) at the ASBCA and within the feder- al government to resolve matters arising under the aus- pices of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. H 7101-7109 (CDA).' Reba Ann Page and Paul Williams are administrative judges on the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA). Judge Page was chairman of the Army Corps of Engineers Board of Contract Appeals,when it merged with the ASBCA in 2000; Judge Williams has been Chairman of the ASBCA since 1985. The views expressed in this article are theirs, and not those of the ASBCA or the Department of Defense (DoD). Historical and Legal Background With the use of ADR now firmly embedded in our legal culture, it may be difficult to recall a time when the use of ADR in federal government contracts was challenged on the bases that (1) there was no authority for employ- ing these procedures, (2) confidential settlement pro- ceedings lacked transparency, and (3) judges were not necessarily involved in the ADR process. In the 1980s, before the use of ADR was embraced by the CDA or the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and before the enactment of Administrative Disputes Resolution Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. §§ 571 et seq. (ADRA), federal agen- cies took note of the private sector's successes in this arena and explored the use of ADR to resolve govern- ment contract disputes. It was against the backdrop of the lack of specific statutory or regulatory authority, and the lack of an articulated policy or defined process, that a seminal DoD inspector general (DoDIG) investigation took place that helped secure the future of ADR by the federal government.' The DoDIG investigation arose from an anonymous continued on page 17 SECTION OF PUBLIC CONTRACT LAW * AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION * VOLUME 49, NUMBER I * FALL 2013 /M9

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most