Claims and Contract Disputes

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.  Continue Reading Tariff Takedown:  Implications of Tariff Refunds for Government Contractors

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

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

Dock Crane Aerial_jpg

A recent decision by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals found the Navy liable to a commercial crane manufacturer for delay damages. In Konecranes Nuclear Equip. & Servs., LLC, ASBCA No. 62797, 2024 WL 2698011 (May 7, 2024), the Board reiterated the age-old lesson—you have to read the contract—and provided guidance about how to calculate the delay damages. Beyond that, the Board found apparent inspiration for part of its holding in an unlikely source: a classic song by the Rolling Stones.Continue Reading You Can’t Always Get What You Want: ASBCA Channels Rolling Stones and Awards Contractor $4.9 Million in Delay Damages

The Federal government may soon adopt new rules for when indefinite delivery contracts and orders are subject to the Cost Accounting Standards. According to a June 18, 2024 notice, the CAS Board is considering multiple different approaches to this issue, and it has invited comments from the public.Continue Reading Wondering Whether Your IDIQ Award Will Be Subject to CAS?  New Rules May Be Coming Soon from the CAS Board.

The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals has published its annual report for FY 2023, providing data regarding the number of appeals and contractor success rates at the Board.  The data illustrated a number of noteworthy points — and a few welcome trends — for the contracting community.Continue Reading Contractors Had a Strong Success Rate Before the CBCA in FY 2023

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals has issued its annual report for FY 2023, shedding light on how often contractor appeals reach a successful result, and what agencies are most frequently involved in contract litigation.Continue Reading ASBCA Issues Annual Report, Providing Data on How Often Contractors Prevail

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit provided new guidance on the high burden that the government must carry to terminate a contract for default.  In Dep’t of Transp. v. Eagle Peak Rock & Paving, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that the validity of a termination decision does not depend exclusively on the contracting officer’s reasoning — rather, the government must produce evidence during litigation to prove the contractor’s default under a de novo standard of review.  The Eagle Peak decision illustrates that, absent a threshold showing that the contracting officer’s decision was pretextual, contractors challenging a default decision should focus on developing the “clean slate” record needed to rebut the government’s allegations, rather than disputing the contracting officer’s rationale (or lack thereof) for termination.Continue Reading It Makes No Deference: Fed Circuit Confirms Proper Standard of Review in Default Termination Challenges

Contractors often assume that government auditors have special authority to interpret the Cost Accounting Standards.  That assumption is easy to understand — auditors frequently take the position that there is just one “right” way for a company to do its contract cost accounting, based on how other companies do things.  But contractors should know that CAS is flexible and generally gives them options about how to comply, based on the circumstances of their business.  In short, a contractor’s business judgment matters, and contractors can use it to push back on auditors who take an overly rigid view of CAS.Continue Reading So the Auditor Says You Violated CAS?  Remember, Your Business Judgment Matters When Determining Compliance

With continued inflation putting pressure on the defense supply chain, the Department of Defense (“DoD”) has released guidance encouraging contracting officers to provide mutually agreeable relief to fixed-price contractors facing untenable costs.

DoD’s guidance, dated September 9, 2022 and available at the link here, follows a similar guidance earlier this summer which recommended that contracting officers consider including economic price adjustment clauses in new solicitations.  We previously wrote about that guidance here.Continue Reading DoD Releases Updated Guidance for Firm-Fixed-Price Contractors Grappling with Inflation