United States: How To Improve Your Teaming Agreement, Part I

Last Updated: February 12 2015
Article by Stephen P. Mulligan

Most companies design their contracts with dual goals in mind: to execute the deal, but to also prepare in the event of a breach. When it comes to teaming agreements, however, even the most sophisticated contractors lose sight of the need for protection if the relationship sours. With a lucrative U.S. federal government contract waiting in the wings, team members assume everything will work out once they receive the contract award.

Too often, this rosy optimism proves short-lived. When it comes time to actually negotiate and perform the subcontract, the parties may find themselves having successfully bid for the prime contract, but unable to negotiate their internal agreement. When this occurs, many tread into the unpredictable no-man's land of teaming agreement litigation.

An improved agreement can help avoid those murky waters and create stability and predictability in future disputes. This series of articles is intended to guide all government contractors—primes and subs—on how to restructure their teaming agreements to protect themselves in the event of a failed relationship.

How Do Teaming Agreement Disputes Arise?

Federal regulations encourage prime contractors to team with one or more companies when they bid for projects with the U.S. government and its agencies.1 These relationships, usually memorialized in teaming agreements, allow companies to complement each other's capabilities and offer the government a wider range of skills, backgrounds, and preferential statuses, such as veteran-owned small business or small disadvantaged business.2 Typically, a potential subcontractor (team member) agrees to support the proposal of the prime contractor (team leader) by providing information and lending its qualifications to the bid.3 In exchange, the team leader offers to execute a subcontract or attempt to negotiate a subcontract with the team member if it receives the prime contract.

In most cases, the parties honor their respective agreements, but there are times when a falling out occurs before they have had a chance to finalize the subcontract.4 For example, a team leader may come to learn that it can more profitably obtain its teammate's services elsewhere and force its teammate to compete with other subcontractors.5 On the other hand, a team member can find itself unable to deliver on its promise to provide specialized services, forcing the team leader to obtain a replacement subcontractor at a higher cost.6 When these breakdowns occur, one party may file suit for breach of the teaming agreement—a form of litigation fraught with uncertainty.

The Murky Waters of Teaming Agreement Litigation

Teaming agreement litigation is not a new field. As far back as 1964, U.S. courts have recognized and enforced agreements in which one entity teams with a partner to bid on a government contract in exchange for an anticipated subcontract.7 Despite a half-century of litigation, there is little consistency or predictability as to whether these forms of agreements are enforceable, even within individual jurisdictions.8

Early case law suggested teaming agreements were per se enforceable.9 In Air Technology Corp. v. General Elec. Co., the Massachusetts Supreme Court became the first court to analyze the validity of a teaming agreement, and it held that General Electric breached the parties' oral agreement when it refused to negotiate a subcontract with its team member.10

After a lull in teaming agreement litigation following Air Technology Corp, several courts in the 1990s followed the trend of enforcing these agreements.11 In Steiner Marine Corp. v. RCA, a Southern District of Alabama jury awarded a verdict to a disappointed subcontractor who alleged that the team leader breached a promise to award a subcontract after winning the prime.12

Similarly, in ATACS Corp. v. Trans World Commc'ns, Inc., a seminal case on teaming agreements,13 the Third Circuit affirmed that the prime contractor's decision to solicit bids for potential subcontracts from competitors of its teaming partner constituted a breach of its teaming agreement.14 The Third Circuit concluded that a promise to engage in good faith negotiations for a subcontract was sufficiently definite to be enforceable, and that the parties' conduct demonstrated an intent to be bound by their agreement.15

In the late 1990s, however, this authority splintered with several courts holding that the common terms of most teaming agreements are unenforceable "agreements to agree." In W.J. Schafer Associates, Inc. v. Cordant, Inc., the U.S. Air Force sought bids for a contract to convert personnel files into a computerized database.16 The teaming agreement stated that the parties would negotiate the specific terms of a subcontract if the prime contract was awarded to the team leader.17 After the leader won the prime, the team member was unable to supply the computerized goods, known as "digitizers," needed to convert the paper documents to microfiche.18 The leader sued for breach of the teaming agreement, and prevailed at trial, but the Virginia Supreme Court reversed the decision, holding that the post-award subcontract negotiation provision was a legally unenforceable agreement to agree.19

That same year, the Fourth Circuit reached an identical conclusion applying California law.20 In Dual, Inc. v. Symvionics, Inc., a team member sought damages for alleged breach of a teaming agreement's obligation to execute a subcontract to design a flight simulator. The Fourth Circuit ruled that the teaming agreement's "good faith provision was an unenforceable 'agreement to agree'" under California law.21

However, this is far from the end of the story. In the last 20 years, courts have applied varying approaches to teaming agreement litigation with many decisions hinging on the nuances in the specific language of the contract. Virginia courts alone have changed positions three times on the enforceability of teaming agreements.

Although the Virginia Supreme Court refused to enforce the teaming agreement in W.J. Schafer, a Virginia trial court distinguished that case and enforced a similar agreement just six years later.22 The trial judge in EG&G v. The Cube Corporation noted that, whereas most teaming agreements include a requirement to negotiate a subcontract in good faith, its agreement stated that one party "would" be awarded the subcontract.23 This single word change was a key factor in deciding between enforceability and unenforceability of the teaming agreement.

Since 2000, numerous courts nationwide have followed this logic and enforced teaming agreements,24 while many others held them to be too vague to adjudicate.25 Most recently, the Eastern District of Virginia flipped Virginia precedent yet again and declined to enforce a teaming agreement between two federal contractors.26 The Cyberlock court distinguished its agreement from other enforceable contracts because it included a provision calling for termination of the teaming agreement in the event of a "failure of the parties to reach agreement on a subcontract after a reasonable period of good faith negotiations."27

While commentators have attempted to apply some organizational rules to these disparate rulings,28 the Virginia example demonstrates that the enforceability of teaming agreements can be nearly impossible to predict.

The second installment in this series will be featured in the next issue of Contract Management and will provide practical tips on how to improve teaming agreements in light of the uncertain case law.

Originally published by Contract Management Magazine.


1. See Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 9.602 and 9.603.

2. See "Recommended Provisions for Teaming Agreements to Help Assure They Are Not Unenforceable 'Agreements to Agree,'" Squire Sanders (April 2014), available at http://tinyurl.com/kfw43ss; and Darrell J. Oyer, Accounting For Government Contracts: Federal Acquisition Regulations (2014).

3. See Recommended Provisions for Teaming Agreements, ibid.; see also ATACS Corp. v. Trans World Commc'ns, Inc., 155 F.3d 659, 666 (3d Cir. 1998).

4. See Recommended Provisions for Teaming Agreements, note 2.

5. For example, in ATACS Corp., the team leader obtained lower-cost proposals from the team member's competitors after entering into a teaming relationship. (See 155 F.3d at 668-69.)

6. See W.J. Schafer Associates, Inc. v. Cordant, Inc., 254 Va. 514 (1997).

7. Ibid. The FAR now formally recognizes teaming agreements. (See FAR 9.602 and 9.603.)

8. See Madalyn A. Murtha, "The Enforceability of Teaming Agreements in Government Contracting and its Effect on Contract Formation," The Procurement Lawyer, 23 (Summer 2014); Oyer, note 2; and Thomas L. Patten, et al., "Teaming Agreements: Basic Principles and Guidelines," Government Contractor Briefing Papers No. 84-4, at 1 (1984).

9. See ATACS Corp., 155 F.3d 659; Air Tech. Corp., 199 N.E.2d 538; and Steiner Marine Corp. v. RCA, No. 88-0558 (S.D. Ala. 1991).

10. Brent E. Newton, Note, "The Legal Effect of Government Contractor Teaming Agreements: A Proposal for Determining Liability and Assessing Damages in Event of Breach," Columbia Law Review 1990, 2010 (1991).

11. E.g., ATACS Corp., 155 F.3d 659, and Steiner Marine Corp., No. 88-0558.

12. See Newton, note 10, at 2012 n. 115.

13. See Murtha, note 8, at 25.

14. ATACS Corp., 155 F.3d at 668–669.

15. Ibid., at 668.

16. W.J. Schafer Associates, Inc. v. Cordant, Inc., 254 Va. 514 (1997).

17. Ibid., at 517.

18. Ibid., at 518.

19. Ibid., at 519–520.

20. Dual, Inc. v. Symvionics, Inc., No. 97-1228, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 23959 (4th Cir. Sept. 12, 1997).

21. Ibid., at *11.

22. EG&G v. The Cube Corporation, 63 Va. Cir. 634 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2002).

23. Ibid., at 649.

24. E.g., Lowry Holding Co., Inc. v. Geroco Tech Holding Corp., not reported in N.W.2d, 2012 WL 1890231 (Mich. Ct. App. May 24, 2012); BAE Sys. Info. & Elec. Sys. Integration, 2009 Del. Ch. LEXIS 17; and X Techs., Inc. v. Marvin Test Sys., 719 F.3d 406, 408 (5th Cir. 2013) (affirming jury verdict enforcing exclusivity clause in teaming agreement).

25. E.g., Martin v. Martin, 326 S.W.3d 741, 748-49 (Tex. App. 2010); Syringa Networds, LLC v. Idaho Dept. of Admin., No. 38735, 2013 WL 1276493 at *6 (Idaho March 29, 2013); and C.H.S. Constr. Co., Inc. v. Mast Constr. Servs., Inc., not reported in A.3d, 2012 WL 488923 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Feb. 16, 2012).

26. Cyberlock Consulting, Inc. v. Info. Experts, Inc., 939 F. Supp. 2d 572, 580 (E.D. Va. 2013), aff'd No. 13-1599, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 322 (4th Cir. 2014).

27. Ibid., at 581.

28. Murtha organized the disparate teaming agreement decisions into five categories: 1) liberal view (always enforceable); 2) moderate liberal view (enforceable if intent to be bound is evident by parties' actions); 3) centrist view (enforceable if material terms are reasonably certain and intent to be bound is shown); 4) moderate conservative view (enforceable only if all material terms are clear); and 5) conservative view (generally unenforceable). (Murtha, see note 8, at 23–24.)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Venable LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Venable LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions