However, the decision of the US District Court for Eastern District of Virginia is in Cyberlock Consulting, Inc. v. Info. Experts, Inc., 939 F. Supp. 2d 572, 578 (E.D. Va. 2013), aff`d, 549 Fed. Appx. 211 (4th Cir. 2014) can provide some guidelines for the development of a potentially enforceable team agreement.

In this case, the District Court, under Virginia law, removed a team agreement as an unenforceable agreement when the court concluded, considering the agreement as a whole, that the parties did not intend to be bound by the agreement. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal relied on the various elements of the teaming agreement (similar to those of the FCi/CGI teaming agreement) as evidence that the parties had considered that a formal subcontract had to be negotiated and executed and that the future transaction „could never apply“. See 939 F. Supp. 2d at 575-75, 581-82. In that regard, the District Court`s interpretation of Virginia law, as applied to the teaming agreement at issue, was consistent with CGI`s Virginia Supreme Court decision. However, in the statement of facts, the District Court found that the teaming agreement at issue was the second of the two teaming agreements between the parties as regards the possibilities of contracting with the Human Resources Management Office. Although the first teaming agreement was not mentioned in the case and the Court of Justice did not discuss its enforceability on the other hand, its examination of this agreement contrasts interestingly with the second non-enforceable agreement.

In particular, the Court found that the first team agreement: the use of team agreements is fairly well established with regard to the submission of proposals or calls for tenders for federal government contracts for the acquisition of supplies, services, construction, research and development and information technology. In fact, federal regulations encourage the use of team agreements. Teaming agreements can also allow disadvantaged companies and small businesses to participate in public works or procurement contracts at federal level or other public contracts. . . .