Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh
Both companies have said that they have charged in line with their genuine interpretation of the contracts  .
So are we expected to believe that billing for tagging dead people or people not even on a tagging order is a legitimate interpretation of the contracts
and how do you interpret a contract beyond it's designed purpose |
Depends on two things: How good the contractor's (in this case G4S) Lawyers are and how good the contractee's (in this case the home office) Lawyers are.
The problem (in my experience) is that the contracts used by the government in general favour the contractor and not the government. I'll be honest, I've never seen one but I've dealt with several government contracts (working in my local hospital) and in general it has seemed as though each contract defined our responsibilities to the contractor quite tightly (tightly to the point where it was almost impossible to deviate from the contract), while allowing the contractors to do pretty much what they want.
That was nearly 20 years ago now, but nothing I have seen since convinces me that anything has changed.