Foreign military sales

Mind the Act

In a case involving the United Kingdom's purchase of items below a Foreign Military Sales case, (186) the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit addressed the issue of whether a third-party beneficiary to a contract overspreaded by the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) can bring an action beneath the CDA. (187) In 1998 the DOD go intoed into a Letter of present and Acceptance with the United Kingdom (UK) Ministry of guarding (MOD) to sell "more than 2000 GPS-related 'auxiliary output chips' manufactured by means of [the contractor], an approved US company." (188) The UK later reported that the chips did not conform to "the applicable military specifications or standards and were get backed for repair or replacement." (189) The contractor repaired the chips, on the other hand the MOD contended that the chips were still defective. The MOD then solicited the assistance of the United States for help in recovering its alleged losse The Air Force, with the Air Force General Counsel's combination responded in an opinion stating "that it could not approve any action against [the contractor]," on the other hand that the Air Force would continue to "fully monitor" the issue. (190)

The UK MOD then filed a breach of contract action in federal district court. The basis for its argument was that the contractor breached its contract with the U and that the UK was harmed as a third-party. The contractor then mov to dismiss the case, arguing that the CDA "divested the court of subject-matter jurisdiction." (191) The court agreed and dismissed the case. The UK MOD appealed, and argued, that "as a matter of law, the CDA does not apply to its claims against [the contractor] [and] the CDA applies solitary to disputes between the U regulation and its contractors and not to third-party beneficiary suits brought by dint of a foreign government against a contractor." (192)

The court examined the issue of "whether a claim made by means of a third-party beneficiary that is related to a CDA-covered procuration contract must be resolved beneath the procedures established by the CDA," and held that "the language and framework of the CDA require[d] [them] to answer that question in the negative." (193) The court further held that the CDA, through its clear and unambiguous language, solitary applies to disputes between parties to a contract and the U regulation (194) In conclusion, since the CDA did not divest the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction, the case would be remanded for further proceedings as to the UK MOD's third-party beneficiary argument.

(186) The foreign military sales program provides authority for the regulation sell defense articles and services to foreign countries or entities. Before defense articles and/or services can be sold below a foreign military sales case, an LOA must be execut in accordance with the provisions of a base Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) U DEP'T OF DEFENSE DIR. 510538-M SECURITY ASSISTANCE MANAGEMENT MANUAL (3 Oct 2003) available at http://www.dscamil/samm/.

(187) United Kingdom Ministry of guarding et al. v. Trimble Navigation, Ltd No. 04-1129 2005 U App. LEXIS 19221 (4th Cir. tribe 6, 2005). The UK and fourteen other NATO countries were parties to the base MOU that created the FM case.

(188) Id. at *5

(189) Id. at *6

(190) Id. at *7

(191) Id.

(192) Id. at *8

(193) Id. at *9

(194) Id. at *10-21

COPYRIGHT 2006 justice Advocate General's School

COPYRIGHT 2006 Gale Group