NCJ Number
94834
Journal
Business Lawyer Volume: 38 Dated: (November 1982) Pages: 35-44
Date Published
1982
Length
10 pages
Annotation
A case history of a mini-hearing process that successfully settled a complex contractual dispute between Western Union Space Communications (Spacecom) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) demonstrates the benefits of this approach and provides the basis for guidelines to planning a mini-hearing.
Abstract
In December 1976, Spacecom entered into a fixed-price contract with NASA for the construction and operation of a tracking and data relay satellite system, TDRSS. By 1981, the contract price had more than doubled as a result of space shuttle delays and severe major government-directed program changes, and several contractual disputes had arisen between Spacecom and NASA. Two disputes were the subject of consolidated appeals filed by Spacecom and its principal subcontractor, TRW, and were pending before the NASA Board of Contract Appeals. They involved issues relating to the interpretation of the TDRSS performance specifications in a variety of highly technical aspects. In the fall of 1981, Spacecom's lawyers proposed a moratorium on the parties' discovery efforts and tried to develop mini-hearing procedures that could lead to a negotiated settlement. This proposal was motivated by the high costs of preparing for trial, the uncertainty of the outcome in a trial, the need for continued cooperation among the parties to complete the project, the need to address the merits of issues in detail and involve senior management, and the need to expose senior NASA officials to the strengths of the contractor's position. A mini-hearing was held which gave all parties a much clearer picture of the issues and their cases' respective strengths and weaknesses, along with a glimpse of the difficulties that would attend a trial. Following a mini-hearing, negotiators reached agreement on the claims as well as on several unrelated disputes. If parties decide to use a mini-hearing, they must make decisions regarding the use of a neutral advisor, length of briefs, who presents the arguments, whether to allow cross-examination, and setting a deadline for negotiations. The paper includes 13 footnotes.