Discussion 2 Week 10 Contract Termination Liability Risk Assignment

Discussion 2 Week 10 Contract Termination Liability Risk - Assignment Example ssionals on adequately addressing potential termination risks on their contracts, and on how potential termination costs would be funded in the event of a termination† (GAO, 2011, p. 11). The recommendations are consistent with the findings which allegedly cause potential termination practices. As emphasized, NASA does not observe consistency in application of detailed and specific instructions for the implementation of FAR clauses. As such, the contractors assume diverse interpretations of reported â€Å"risks and financial responsibilities related to potential termination liability, which may be due in part to NASA’s inconsistent practices† (GAO, 2011, p. 10). As such, the recommendation requiring NASA professionals to monitor potential termination costs would only be successful if and when the root cause of the dispute and inconsistency in practices is addressed. Thus, first and foremost, NASA should be able to design structured and consistent policies and prac tices concerning termination liability funding to avoid problems ensuing from contract termination in the future. One alternative to reinforce consistency in contract termination practices is to enforce review and monitoring of long term government projects and contracts within a definite time frame, say, every three years. Any need for changes, adjustments, and updates which are not within the original scope of the contract should be identified within that stage of progress. As such, as early as possible, when termination costs are not yet significant, the government and contracting parties should already set the stage for appropriate action (either termination or proceed with the contract) within a maximum ceiling (costs) stipulated. The changes and conditions should be subject to the regulations set in terminations for default and convenience (OConnor,