A recent appeals board decision (ASBCA No. 58063) made the following interesting statements:
“The motion reasserts contentions that any such contract lacked an express Disputes clause, which is an essential foundation for our jurisdiction over WMATA contractual disputes. In determining that we were empowered to resolve whether Delta’s interactions and communications with WMATA gave rise to the alleged implied-in-fact contract, we held that, if appellant’s allegations are proven,
WMATA’s acquisition procedures mandated incorporation of the Disputes clause.”
AND
“However, the absence of an express Disputes clause in the purchase order is irrelevant. Whether the alleged implied-in-fact contract is viewed as a discrete, independent agreement or as an ancillary implied term of the purchase agreement, the clause is required by the WMATA Procurement Manual (WPM) (2004).”
The Point? Polices and Procedures govern simply by the fact of their existence, enforcement is secondary.