For an example of a team agreement containing these essential concepts, see CE&G. The agreement in this specific case stated: “If the contract is awarded to [Cube], CE&G will perform certain functional areas as subcontractors. . . . with the functions to be defined when the [Request For Proposal (RFP)] is released”.` Following the publication of the RFP, the team members divided the “labour declarations (SOWs)] according to the skills and competences of each company”, and the parties explained their division of labour in the proposal. With respect to compensation, the team agreement provided for a cost-type contract and the two team members submitted separate cost proposals to the government that estimated the cost of their portions of the work. As for the duration, the team agreement stipulates that the subcontracting would have the same duration as any main contract. Although the parties` subcontract negotiations failed due to the subcontractor`s willingness to accept an indirect rate cap and a termination clause, the Tribunal found that the Former had proposed these terms in bad faith and that the differences of opinion between the parties on these points did not slash their indemnification and duration agreement. Cyberlock falls directly on the W.J.
Shafer end of the spectrum. In such cases, an agency might still be able to take into account the past performance of each member of a JV. In other cases, the application may indicate that it takes into account only the experience gained so far by the executive member of a JV; or that it accepts examples of past services concluded individually by the Joint Undertaking itself, but not by one of the members of the JV. . . .