The discussion question for this week is based on the case Darwin Construction Co., Inc. v. United States on page 582 of the text. While the record in Darwin indicates there are potential grounds for a termination for default the Court of Appeals decided otherwise. Do you agree with this decision why or why not? More importantly, what impact do you see this decision having on government contracting? To the extent you have experience in the matter, is the use of Termination for Convenience used more frequently than you believe it should be because it's easier than Termination for Default? Also, remember to reply to the response of one other member of the class.

Reference: Government Contract Law in the Twenty-First Century, Charles Tiefer and William A. Shook, Carolina Academic Press, 2012, (ISBN: 978-1-59460-804-9)