Petrillo: Keepin' it simple

A plain-meaning approach is a risky way to interpret federal contracting laws

The Supreme Court rarely rules on government contract cases. But its rulings in other cases can influence procurement law, sometimes in subtle ways.

Consider the matter of legislative history. When a law's meaning isn't clear, courts sometimes look to committee hearings, conference reports or floor debates to shed light on what Congress intended when it passed a statute.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are notoriously scornful of legislative history. Instead, they look only at the words in the statute. This plain-meaning approach puts more stock in dictionary definitions than conference reports. Over time, their view has prevailed. Last year, a study concluded that the Supreme Court relies on legislative history half as often as it once did.

That trend appears to be affecting government contract disputes. Increasingly, the courts look only at the plain meaning of a contract clause or regulation.

For example,  a case involving United Technologies turned on the meaning of the words 'material cost' in a procurement regulation. The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit went out of its way to slam the testimony of three self-proclaimed experts on what the regulation meant. The court even said such evidence was inadmissible.

The same trend is evident in cases of contract interpretation. One starts with the words of the contract. But when those words aren't clear, courts have looked to external evidence of intent, such as trade practice and other contracts and testimony.

In a recent case involving TEG-Paradigm Environmental, the same court moved closer to the plain-meaning approach. It held that external evidence other than trade practice was useful only to confirm the plain meaning of a contract, not to determine if it was ambiguous.

But why should external evidence be limited to confirming the apparent plain meaning? That smacks of ignoring the evidence that doesn't support your conclusion. And what if language that appears to be clear isn't?
There is another problem with this approach. Jargon distorts common words in uncommon ways. 'Start' doesn't usually mean turning something off, but that's where you go to shut down a Windows computer. And when economists talk about 'rent-seeking behavior,' they don't mean landlords dunning tenants.
Government contract regulations have more than their share of jargon, and that's where expert testimony can help.

The plain-meaning approach also relies too heavily on a judge's knowledge. The higher up the judicial ladder that a judge ascends, the less likely it is that he or she has hands-on experience with government contracts. Therefore, the judge might be ignorant of the context that informs meaning.

The plain-meaning approach works best with simple issues. Unfortunately, the cases that end up in court are there because the contract or regulation isn't clear on  crucial points. Just staring at the words might not be the best way to resolve a complex issue. The plain-meaning approach might work for statutory interpretation, but it isn't robust enough for federal contracts and their complex regulations.

Petrillo is a lawyer at Washington law firm Petrillo and Powell. He can be reached at jp@petrillopowell.com.

The Fed 100

Save the date for 28th annual Federal 100 Awards Gala.

Featured

  • computer network

    How Einstein changes the way government does business

    The Department of Commerce is revising its confidentiality agreement for statistical data survey respondents to reflect the fact that the Department of Homeland Security could see some of that data if it is captured by the Einstein system.

  • Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. Army photo by Monica King. Jan. 26, 2017.

    Mattis mulls consolidation in IT, cyber

    In a Feb. 17 memo, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told senior leadership to establish teams to look for duplication across the armed services in business operations, including in IT and cybersecurity.

  • Image from Shutterstock.com

    DHS vague on rules for election aid, say states

    State election officials had more questions than answers after a Department of Homeland Security presentation on the designation of election systems as critical U.S. infrastructure.

  • Org Chart Stock Art - Shutterstock

    How the hiring freeze targets millennials

    The government desperately needs younger talent to replace an aging workforce, and experts say that a freeze on hiring doesn't help.

  • Shutterstock image: healthcare digital interface.

    VA moves ahead with homegrown scheduling IT

    The Department of Veterans Affairs will test an internally developed scheduling module at primary care sites nationwide to see if it's ready to service the entire agency.

  • Shutterstock images (honglouwawa & 0beron): Bitcoin image overlay replaced with a dollar sign on a hardware circuit.

    MGT Act poised for a comeback

    After missing in the last Congress, drafters of a bill to encourage cloud adoption are looking for a new plan.

Reader comments

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above

More from 1105 Public Sector Media Group