Elizabeth Witwer

Elizabeth Witwer represents government contractors litigating contract claims and performance disputes against the U.S. government and other contractors, such as claims under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), defective pricing claims, cost-allowability disputes, prime-sub disputes, and matters involving termination for convenience and breach of contract. She litigates cases in a variety of venues, including the Boards of Contract Appeals and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC).

Elizabeth joined the firm after serving as an Administrative Judge on the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA), where she was responsible for adjudicating disputes arising under the CDA between contractors and federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, NASA, and the CIA.

Prior to serving at the ASBCA, Elizabeth held overlapping positions at the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) as a Senior Attorney in the Procurement Law Division and as a member of GAO’s Contract Appeals Board. In these roles, she dual-hatted as adjudicator of bid protests challenging federal procurements and presided over contract disputes between contractors and legislative branch agencies.

Earlier in her career, Elizabeth served as a Trial Attorney in the Civil Division of the Department of Justice, where she defended the United States and federal agencies in contract, employment, and constitutional disputes before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the COFC. She also served on active duty in the U.S. Army as counsel to the Army’s Legal Services Agency and the 4th Infantry Division on procurement matters and contract litigation, including while deployed to Iraq.

In addition to her legal practice, Elizabeth is a Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve.

Contact:

Tariff Takedown: Implications of Tariff Refunds for Government Contractors

By Peter B. Hutt II, Elizabeth Witwer, Peter Terenzio, Robert Huffman & Victoria Skiera on March 12, 2026

Posted in Claims and Contract Disputes, Costs, Global Trade

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court struck down an extensive series of tariffs imposed last year by President Trump, holding that they were not authorized under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”). And on March 4, 2026, the United States Court of International Trade began the process of refunding certain of “the millions of entries that were subject to IEEPA,” through a process known in the international trade context as liquidating.

These recent decisions by the Supreme Court and Court of International Trade may prompt federal contractors to consider seeking refunds of tariffs paid to import goods required to perform under their government contracts. As we covered in a previous post, government contracts may contain clauses allowing for price increases following the imposition of a new federal tax. These clauses can also work the other way and require a price decrease (or a credit to the Government under a cost-reimbursement contract) in the event of an after-relieved tax.

Stop-Work Means Stop Work (…Until It Doesn’t): Lessons from Wolverine Tube

By Elizabeth Witwer, Daniel Russell Jr., Peter Terenzio & Homer La Rue on February 11, 2026

Posted in Bid Protests, Claims and Contract Disputes, Costs, FAR

A recent decision from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) is a timely reminder that, when it comes to stop‑work orders, the clause the government actually invokes—not the one it later wishes it had—can be outcome‑determinative. In Wolverine Tube, Inc., ASBCA No. 63877 (Jan. 22, 2026), the Board rejected the Air Force’s attempt to retroactively recharacterize a stop‑work order and held that the order expired by its own terms after 90 days. Although the contractor did not obtain summary judgment on most of its claimed costs, the decision breaks new ground on how protest-related stop-work orders operate, what happens when they lapse, and how far the government can go in arguing that “stop work” really meant “stop incurring costs forever.”

Top Five Trends and Takeaways from the FY 2025 ASBCA and CBCA Annual Reports

By Elizabeth Witwer, Daniel Russell Jr. & Jennifer Bentley on December 5, 2025

Posted in Claims and Contract Disputes

As fiscal year (“FY”) 2025 closes, both the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”) and Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (“CBCA”) released their annual reports. Together, the two reports provide a useful snapshot of case volumes, outcomes, agency trends, and procedural developments. We break down the findings and, most importantly, what they mean for contractors navigating claims and disputes in FY 2026.