Claims and Contract Disputes

A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) serves as an important reminder that forum selection under the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”) can have consequences that extend beyond a single appeal. In Gilbane Federal v. United States, 182 Fed. Cl. 177 (2026), the Court transferred a contractor’s claim to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”) even though the contractor could no longer have filed that claim directly at the ASBCA because the CDA’s 90-day appeal period had already expired. The Court concluded nonetheless that transfer was appropriate because a separate appeal related to the same contract was pending before the ASBCA.

The decision highlights two often-overlooked features of CDA litigation. First, forum selection is not simply a matter of choosing between the COFC and the Boards of Contract Appeals for a particular claim. Second, when multiple claims arising from the same contract are litigated in different forums, the COFC has broad authority to consolidate or transfer those disputes in the interest of justice and efficiency.

Continue Reading The Forum You Chose Yesterday May Control the Claim You File Tomorrow

The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (“CBCA” or the “Board”) recently issued a stark reminder that discovery misconduct can be case-dispositive.  In Venergy Group, LLC v. Department of Veterans Affairs, the Board dismissed a contractor’s $4.2 million affirmative claim after finding that financial statements produced during discovery had been intentionally manipulated to support larger damages calculations.

Continue Reading Discovery Fraud Comes at a Price: CBCA Dismisses Contractor’s Monetary Claim as a Sanction

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (the “ASBCA” or “Board”) recently rejected an unprecedented request from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) to withhold publication of a Board decision on the merits in a construction delay appeal brought by KiewitPhelps.  In a decision issued on June 25, 2026 (released publicly on July 16, 2026), the Board held that it was bound by the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) and its own rules to publish the decision, and that the Corps had not demonstrated a basis for overcoming that requirement.  This decision is noteworthy not only because the Board found no legal basis to suppress the opinion, but also because, as the Board observed, such a request had never before been directly presented to the Board.

Continue Reading ASBCA Denies Unprecedented Request to Keep Decision Out of Public View

As part of the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul, the FAR Council has issued a proposed rule to revise FAR Part 49, Termination of Contracts, that would significantly accelerate the timeline for submitting termination settlement proposals following a termination for convenience.  Under the proposed rule, contractors would be required to submit termination settlement proposals to the contracting officer within 90 days after termination—nine months earlier than the current one-year deadline.  According to the FAR Council, the change is intended “to improve the efficiency of the settlement process by addressing delays experienced under the current framework.” 

Continue Reading FAR Council Proposes 90-Day Deadline for Termination Settlement Proposals

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals’ (ASBCA) decision in Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., ASBCA No. 63621, reinforces a critical principle for government contractors:  contract performance requirements operate independently of cost accounting classifications. Contractors cannot avoid substantive FAR and DFARS obligations—here, U.S.-flag transportation requirements—by treating costs as…

Continue Reading Indirect Doesn’t Mean Exempt: ASBCA Rejects Cross‑Motions Over U.S.-Flag Transportation Costs

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.