Previous Image
Next Image

info heading

info content

     

Teaming Agreement Sec

CGI appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court, which upheld the court`s decision. Initially, the Tribunal dismissed CGI`s infringement and found that there was no binding agreement for subcontracting. Id. at 8-10. On the contrary, the parties would have explicitly conditioned the formation of a subcontracting to future events and negotiations in good faith. Id. There was a binding agreement to negotiate in good faith, but CGI never claimed that FCi had not negotiated a subcontracting in good faith. Id.CGI therefore failed to oppose their infringement action. As CGI Federal shows, these common notions can be an almost impenetrable network of barriers to the success of outsourcing. Prior to this case, it was found that an „agreement of agreement“ was not applicable, at least under Virginia law, so that the case did not enter into new ground. The court found that FCi had entered into an enforceable agreement to negotiate in good faith, but CGI did not claim FCi`s bad faith negotiations. While the jury found that FCi misled CGI, CGI`s strategic decisions to confirm the amended team agreement and seek out the loss of revenue for fraud closed CGI`s right to a cash prize for fraud or unjust enrichment. In 2012, CGI signed a cooperation agreement with FCi to jointly develop a contract proposal from the Department of Foreign Affairs for which FCi would be the main contractor and CGI as a subcontractor.

underpants. Mpl 2-3. FCi retained exclusive rights to finalize the proposal and negotiate any principal contract with the government. Id. The team agreement states that CGI will receive 45% of the total value of the contract, but „the commitment must not be exactly 45% per year,“ and the parties were asked to enter into „good faith negotiations“ on a subcontract after the award of key contracts. If the parties fail to agree on a subcontract within 90 days of awarding, the team contract would expire. Id.CGI sued FCi in Fairfax County, virginia Circuit Court, and filed three claims. Id.CGI alleged violation of the amended team agreement because FCi never subcontracted for the 41% of work participation and 10 management positions. For this right, CGI sought the indirect reimbursement it would have received from this portion of work. Id. at 5, 7. [1] CGI rejected another right to undue enrichment in order to recover the costs of preparing the proposal and reduce FCi`s profits on the main contract.

Id. at 6.CGI also claimed that he had been fraudulently incited, with the revised proposal, to assist, by FCi`s promise to obtain workshare and ten management positions, in order to realize the profits it wanted to make from subcontracting.

Zurück zur Übersicht!