History

Compare “actual impossibility” and “practical impossibility” in performance of government contract specifications.

Differentiate “strict compliance” from “minimum compliance” in terms of contract completion requirements.

Compare “substantial compliance” in construction, supply, and service contracts.

Actual impossibility is decided when a contract absolutely cannot be complete because the requirements are erroneous completion according to specifications is impossible, or the state of the art technology isn’t available yet to be able to meet the specification. Probable impossibility is when the project can be complete within the specifications, but the cost to meet the requirement is so exhorbitant it would be economically unfeasible. It can’t be something as simple as a rise in prices, but something major such as differing site conditions where drawings are submitted but several floors were not defined in the specifications.

Strict Compliance is the government’s right to expect exactly what they requested. If the government specifies an HP Pavilion dv6000, then it is the Government’s right to receive it, nothing less, nothing more, unless the government is willing to agree to the change. Minimum Compliance is the Contractor’s right to work at minimum performance as long as the Government’s requirements are met. If specifications provide choices at which they can perform, they can use the least costly method, as long as the end product meets the government’s needs.

Substantial compliance in construction contracts occurs when a project is near completion and minor deficiencies have not been complete which do not delay completion or have a negative effect on the final product. If substantial compliance is determined the contractor cannot be terminated for default, but will be responsible for crediting the government for any work not complete, or may subsequently complete the project at a later date. An example of this would be a construction project where...