Although provisions such as these do not guarantee applicability, they do address some shortcomings in the cooperation of agreements such as CGI, Navar and Cyberlock, which have been found to be unenforceable by virginal law. CGI was not well served by the team agreement with FCi: a jury found that CGI had been fraudulently inciting to implement the revised team agreement; and although CGI continued to help FCi prepare proposals, it was then “left at the altar” without subcontracting or remedy. However, state contractors will continue to use team agreements, as the combination of complementary functions improves the ability of team members to obtain contract contracts and because many purchases are now “team-versus-team.” On appeal, the Virginia Supreme Court upheld the court`s ruling overturning the jury`s judgment for violating the offense. The Court found that “the revised team agreement does not create an enforceable obligation for FCi to extend a subcontract with a 41% share of work and 10 executive positions on CGI.” Count on Navar, Inc. v. Fed. bus. Couns., 291 Va. 338, 347 (2016) (Steptoe`s Navar advisory can be found here), the Tribunal found that the revised team agreement, which was read as a whole, did not create enforceable obligations after FCi was awarded to extend the work to CGI subcontractors and that the amended cooperation agreement required at most a framework for good negotiations under a final contract.  The team agreement also provided that each party would bear its own costs, expenses, risks and liabilities arising from the implementation of the team agreement and prevent the recovery of the shortfall due to a violation of the team agreement.
For example, cyberlock Consulting, Inc. v. Info. Expert, Inc., Cyberlock and Information Expert (IE), a team agreement that provided that, in the case of a Cyberlock acquisition contract, the parties would negotiate a subcontracting in which IE would perform 49% of the work . Although Cyberlock received the main contract, the parties were unable to agree on the terms of the prospective subcontracting, and IE did not receive 49% of the work. IE then lodged an appeal with the Bundesbezirksgericht. However, the Tribunal found that the Association Agreement was governed by Virginia contract law and therefore an unenforceable agreement. Conversely, in ATACS Corp. v. Trans World Commc`ns, Inc., Transworld and ATACS entered into an exclusive association agreement that provided that Transworld would be the main contractor and ATACS the subcontractor . When Transworld received the main contract, but atacs was unable to sub-mandate, ATACS filed a complaint in the Federal District Court. The ATACS court applied Pennsylvania law and found that the team agreement was an enforceable contract that Transworld contracted to subcontract to third parties.
The Court`s judgment essentially states that such an agreement is not applicable under virginia law, to the extent that a potential subcontractor seeks a breach of contractual damages because it has not contracted out under the team agreement.