No description available.

This dissertation explores "fairness" as an ethical construct within federal procurement contracting using 3,548 contract dispute decisions published by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) between 2007 and 2021. It employed a multi-faceted, mixed method research design at macro, mezzo, and micro levels that used a blend of descriptive analysis, computational text analysis, and qualitative thematic analysis to explore a little-studied operational domain within public administration. This investigative approach made possible an examination of how fairness manifests in federal procurement in three aspects: equality (competition), equity (contractor demographic identity), and reciprocity (dispute resolution outcome). Aspects of Moore's Public Values Framework were combined with Lipsky's theories regarding street-level bureaucracy and Maynard-Moody and Musheno's conceptualization of frontline workers as knowledge agents to examine the "human" dimensions of administrative discretion in procurement. In addition to explaining the fundamental differences between "fairness" (between individual entities) and "justice" (fairness writ large at the societal level), the dissertation demonstrates how power dynamics between the government sovereign and its commercial civilian partners complicate contract relationships. Its quantitative findings suggest that fairness is impacted by procurement complexity, entrenched arms-length contracting relationships, and strictly construed risk apportionment when contingencies adversely impact contract performance conditions, and that contractor identity plays some role (though its extent is unclear) in the generation and resolution of particularly contentious disputes. This study's qualitative findings indicate that both parties perceive a breakdown in the contractual duty of "good faith and fair dealing" when rivalry is pursued over cooperation, when the parties fail to understand or respect each other's responsibilities and constraints, and when the behavior of government contracting officials creates role confusion between the protection of government interests and the legislatively required fair treatment of contracting partners. Ultimately, this dissertation speaks to ongoing discussions in diverse fields and disciplines such as public administration, organizational studies, empirical legal research, and relational contracting. It also contributes to developing theories regarding complexity in procurement and existing contracting studies from both sociological and economic perspectives. / Doctor of Philosophy / In popular thought, written contracts exist to protect the rights of both parties should one fail to uphold its part of the "bargain." Some legal theorists argue, by contrast, that the contracting process fundamentally is about interpersonal relationships, and that litigated contract disputes are not merely about material redress, but moreover, a failure of the "spirit of contract." From this perspective, a contract's true value lies more in the quality of the relationships it creates than in its documentary perfection. Interpersonal fairness, where the parties treat each other and their contract promises with integrity and respect, is a key component of that relationship. This dissertation studied the ethical expectation of "fairness" in federal defense contracts using 3,548 formal contract dispute decisions published by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) between 2007 and 2021. These decisions were used to examine what procurement fairness means by focusing on three aspects: equality (fair competition for business opportunities), equity (fair distribution of public funding), and reciprocity (how the "spirit of contract" is honored during contract administration). The study explored how government sovereignty impacts contractors' expectations of fair treatment. It further demonstrated that contract relationships are challenged by the complex technical, administrative, and legal requirements of federal contracts. The study's findings revealed that the most contentious disputes (those that require a judge's ruling on legal merit) result from highly competitive contracts where maximum risk has been placed on contractors for performance and price control. The findings also suggested that contractor demographic identity plays some part in how disputes begin and how they are resolved, though the extent and implications of these differences are unclear. Finally, the study indicated that disputes alleging a violation of the contractual duty of "good faith and fair dealing" showed evidence of entrenched rivalry instead of cooperation, the contracting parties' failure to appreciate each other's operating challenges and constraints, and confusion about how federal contracting officers function as both protectors of the government's interests and as contractor rights advocates under federal contract law.

All democratic organisations operate under a particular set of rules. Such procedures are implemented by the very individuals that create and maintain them, usually under a majority voting rule. This research project engages with the question of why and how members of parliament "abdicate" procedural power, focusing on the evolution of the rules of debate in the UK House of Commons. Working from newly collected data on the reform of Standing Orders of the House spanning 205 years (1811 - 2015), as well as records of over six million speeches, it provides a new perspective on procedural choice. Framing debate as a platform for speech-as-filibuster behaviour, I develop a formal model where the decision to support an anti-dilatory reform is primarily a function of polarisation. I show that legislators adopt restrictive rules when they are more likely to share policy preferences with colleagues within their party. The presence of shared views, then, motivates MPs to prioritise responsible use of the common resource of plenary time over individual policy influence. Both empirically and theoretically, my research offers new insights into the process of parliamentary reform in the absence of party discipline, and studies how the dynamics of procedural choice change as political parties enter the stage. Methodologically, it makes a contribution to the text-as-data field, exploring the use of novel machine-learning techniques in the measurement of political preferences.