The Essence of an Administrative Contract
A government contract, described in the General Administrative Code of Georgia as an administrative contract, is the legal instrument through which an administrative body and a private party share obligations in the performance of a public task. Such a transaction is a meeting of two wills: one side is always an administrative body, while the other is a natural person or legal entity that carries out a specific public function in cooperation with the state. The General Administrative Code regulates these contracts under a distinct regime and determines their form, the grounds for their invalidity, and the way they operate when circumstances change. A contract with a state body therefore lives under rules different from an ordinary civil-law transaction. An administrative contract carries both civil-law and public-law features at once, and these two lines must be distinguished in every clause.
The Mandatory Written Form
Article 69 of the Code settles the form of an administrative contract with a single rule: unless otherwise provided by law, an administrative contract may be concluded only in written form. The written form is an instrument of security for both sides, because it records the agreed conditions, the scope of obligations, and the sequence of performance. An oral understanding with an administrative body is legally unprotected in this field, since it is precisely the written document that becomes the principal evidence in the disputes that emerge years later. An exception is possible only where a law itself prescribes a different form, and that exception must always be directly contemplated by the specific norm. An oral understanding with an administrative body creates no contract, so every stage must be reflected in a document.
Proportionality of Public and Private Interests
Article 7 of the Code places the discretionary powers of an administrative body within strict boundaries, and this logic extends over the whole architecture of government contracting. When exercising discretionary authority, an administrative-legal act may not be issued if the damage inflicted on the rights and interests of a person protected by law substantially exceeds the good for the sake of which it is issued. Likewise, measures contemplated by an act issued in the exercise of discretionary authority may not cause an unjustified restriction of the lawful rights and interests of a person. In practical terms, the state interest is not an end in itself: if the path chosen to achieve it harms a private party more than it benefits society, the decision violates the proportionality requirement and becomes subject to challenge.