Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 19 AUGUST 2004

Teaming Agreements Revisited

A previous article discussed a significant decision by a trial court in Fairfax County, Virginia, which ordered a prime contractor with the Navy and NASA, to honor its teaming agreement and continue working with its teaming partner and primary subcontractor. <I>EG&G Technical Services, Inc. v. The Cube Corporation</I>, Chancery No. 178996 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. Dec. 23, 2002). In his opinion, Judge Terrence Ney distinguished the case from a 1997 decision by the Virginia Supreme Court that had dec

United StatesGovernment, Public Sector
John Rowley III
John Rowley III
Jennifer Short
Jennifer Short

Originally published August 2004

A previous article discussed a significant decision by a trial court in Fairfax County, Virginia, which ordered a prime contractor with the Navy and NASA, to honor its teaming agreement and continue working with its teaming partner and primary subcontractor. EG&G Technical Services, Inc. v. The Cube Corporation, Chancery No. 178996 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. Dec. 23, 2002). In his opinion, Judge Terrence Ney distinguished the case from a 1997 decision by the Virginia Supreme Court that had declared a teaming agreement an unenforceable "agreement to agree." This article revisits the issue of teaming agreements and discusses some recent developments.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from