For now, team agreements can still be enforceable contracts under the virginia law. However, the parties must be prepared to commit to as many specific conditions as is reasonable to negotiate before the government formally awards the main contract. Specificity is the key to these agreements because, as is often the case when a court examines the terms of an agreement, the devil is in the details. Primero: Ella nos hace reflexionar sobre las caracter`sticas de la din`mica actual de trabajo y nos hace conclude that la forma como hoy en d`a realmente trabajamos es muy diferente a la de un equipo estable Hoy nos manejamos a) al ritmo de las operaciones global, that his complejas, cambiantes, r`pidas e inciertas (entre otras cosas), b) Muchos tienen turnos de trabajo 7/24, y con horarios cambiantes, c) Muchos trabajamos “cross-profesiones,” con mas frecuencia encontramos equipos de diversas especialidades colaborando sobre un mismo problema (porque en difer momentos de su resolucién, necesitas dife es decir: ya no hay “roles fijos” y d) Seguramente van a estar trabajando sobre cosas que nunca hiercieron. Esta sentesis de conceptos nos puede aclarar el sentido de cada una de estas palabras, pero como traductores debemos siempre respetar el sentido general que el autor del documento que estamos traduciendo le asigna al texto. The Virginia Supreme Court considered the applicability of team agreements in W.J. Schafer Associates, Inc. v. Cordant, Inc., Va. Record No.
961945, (Va S. Ct. 1997). Cordant, who was either out of contract or re-procured the goods provided by the subcontractor at a much higher price under the team agreement, sued his team member for breach of contract when he could not reach an agreement on a definitive subcontract when the main contract was awarded. The team agreement stipulated that the parties would “negotiate a sub-contract in good faith on time.” The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that Cordant was not entitled to a violation when the parties did not accept a final sub-contract and stated: “… there must be mutual agreement between the contracting parties on conditions which, in the present circumstances, are reasonably safe to have an enforceable contract. There has not been such a mutual commitment. No amount was indicated in the agreement and no method or formula was used to determine the amount to be paid. A court should not set the terms of the transaction on which the parties could finally agree. Since the agreement does not provide a reasonable basis for the provision of a remedy for its violation, it is too vague and unlimited to be enforced.
Cyberlock is remarkable because the court refused to consider extrinsic evidence that the complainant claims to have provided some of the missing essential terms, and instead his analysis focused exclusively on the conditions set out in the team agreement. The Tribunal concluded that the agreement clearly delayed the solution of important conditions for future subcontracting negotiations and that the parties promised nothing more than to attempt, at a later date, to formally negotiate subcontracting within general parameters. In this context, Cyberlock distanced itself from EG-G, which relied heavily on the parties` proposal to the government to decide that the parties had accepted the essential conditions of a sub-mandate. The EC-G can be brought into compliance with Cyberlock to the extent that the EC-G team agreement explicitly referred to the proposal, thus inviting the invocation of this document in determining the intention of the parties. Regardless of this, Cyberlock reminds us that, since most equipment agreements are considering further negotiations after the award of the contract, the complainants face a bitter struggle that convinces a court that the parties have agreed on conditions concrete enough to create an enforceable promise to award or accept a subcontract.