Space News says kill this bill.
It’s a very foolish (and probably unconstitutional) piece of legislation, whose only purpose is to protect high-cost pork projects that hold us back from space accomplishment.
2 thoughts on “Contract Termination Liability”
Comments are closed.
“but NASA has always wielded, at least in theory, the power to ax serial budget busters.”
I don’t see how this could possibly be true. Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act back in 1974 as Nixon was getting grilled and I don’t think any executive administration has ever fought it in court. Which they should, I don’t think it is Constitutional. Neither would this new proposal be, asking permission from appropriators to not execute, ridiculous. Where’s the checks and balances on appropriations? Congress shouldn’t have a guarantee the money they appropriate to their pet(constituent) projects always get obligated and executed. Bring back impoundment!
I’ve experienced it first hand, working for an organization that the AF wanted to disband, but Congress (well, some in Congress and willing to barter other pork for it) didn’t. It took years for the AF to figure out a way that could get past the Congress hurdle to make the office somewhat dissolved/repurposed.
I just noticed Michael Listner commented on the article and briefly affirmed the author’s comment. I’m hoping he stops by here as well and can maybe explain why he sees it that way.
I’m curious as to what they (the Congresspersons) think they could get out of this bill long term – wouldn’t it only free the moment of passage’s currently held termination liability for use to the programs? Why would you budget for termination liability in the next year at all, if you didn’t have to?
In the NASA programs I was involved with, we grilled our contractors quite often on termination liability and tracked it like hawks. Holding an unreasonable amount may stifle your ability to do productive work (and depending on where you hold it, in the govt or at the contractor, effect your obligation rates which can risk future budget); holding too little risks exposure to an Anti-Deficiency Act violation in the event of cancellation, I guess this bill would avoid that by forcing Congress to appropriate an additional amount for termination when they give permission to terminate. Or maybe not, and Congress can cause their own ADA violation, heh.