A prime contractor is responsible for managing its subcontractors, but what exactly does that require? In a recent decision, the answer of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals was: not nearly as much as DCAA claimed. In Lockheed Martin Integrated Sys., Inc., ASBCA Nos. 59508, 59509, the Board ruled on a Government claim seeking … Continue Reading
A few weeks ago, we provided a few tips for negotiating and assessing a release contained in a contract modification, and discussed why the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) found that a global release contained in one of many contract modification was ambiguous. Now, we consider a different scenario: what happens when a final … Continue Reading
You are reviewing a contract modification and notice a paragraph titled “Release of Claims.” Do you know what claims will be released by this language? Or worse, the contracting officer just issued a final decision rejecting your claim (under the Contract Disputes Act) because the release in a contract modification constituted an accord and satisfaction. … Continue Reading
As Yogi Berra famously quipped, “It’s like Déjà vu all over again!” In that spirit, Congress has again signaled that it will pass a continuing resolution to fund the Government through spring—despite vocal opposition from the Pentagon. As a result of this short term funding mechanism, contractors face a number of potential pitfalls: contract options … Continue Reading
The Fourth Circuit recently held, in an unpublished opinion, that the anti-retaliation or “whistleblower” provisions of the False Claims Act (“FCA”) protect an individual’s efforts to stop a contractor from violating the FCA, even when there is no “distinct possibility” of litigation. This “distinct possibility” standard was adopted prior to 2009 when the whistleblower provision … Continue Reading
The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA” or the “Board”) recently issued an opinion addressing several important, and controversial, topics of interest to government contractors. The lengthy opinion addressed key issues related to the Board’s jurisdiction over government claims and affirmative defenses based on alleged contractor fraud, the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”) statute of limitations, … Continue Reading
At the intersection of bid protests and claims, in Optimum Services, Inc. v. Department of the Interior, CBCA 4968 (May 2, 2016), the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (“CBCA” or “Board”) recently encountered the question of whether a decision by the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) can preclude a contractor from later maintaining an appeal of … Continue Reading
A recent decision from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) serves as an important reminder that a contractor’s timely notification to the contracting officer (CO) of its intent to appeal a CO’s final decision will satisfy the Board’s 90-day deadline for filing appeals under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA). Although the facts of … Continue Reading
The Civilian Board of Contract Appeal’s recent decision in Muhammad v. Department of Justice provides another example of an Agency Board of Contract Appeals requiring the Government to file the complaint instead of the contractor—a growing trend which promotes more efficient appeals by helping to ensure that contractors are provided adequate notice of the basis … Continue Reading
Ever since the Federal Circuit held in M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2010) that “a contractor seeking an adjustment of contract terms must meet the jurisdictional requirements and procedural prerequisites of the [Contract Disputes Act], whether asserting the claim against the government as an affirmative claim or … Continue Reading
On October 31, 2015, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (CoFC) in Horn & Associates, Inc. v. United States (No. 08-415C) rejected three fraud-based counterclaims that were filed by the U.S. Government in response to a breach of contract action brought by the plaintiff, Horn & Associates (Horn), through a certified claim under the Contract … Continue Reading
The Court of Federal Claims recently issued an opinion in the long running litigation between Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (“Sikorsky”) and the United States regarding Sikorsky’s cost accounting practices. In this new decision, the court rejected a government attempt to pursue a new legal theory to challenge Sikorsky’s compliance with the Cost Accounting Standard (“CAS”), which … Continue Reading
Company communications with government authorities about potential criminal activity or wrongdoing by the company’s employees may expose that company to liability for defamation; that is, unless those communications are considered privileged. In the majority of states, communications with police or prosecutors are afforded “qualified” or “conditional” privilege, and generally may be the basis of a … Continue Reading
In Cooley Constructors, Inc. v. GSA, CBCA No. 3905 (June 8, 2005), the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) found that the substance of an appeal – not the form – is the prevailing consideration when analyzing whether the CBCA has jurisdiction to hear a sponsored-subcontractor appeal under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA). Consistent with … Continue Reading
Background: In Appeal of Laguna Construction Company, Inc., the Armed Services Board of Contracts Appeals (“ASBCA”) found that a contractor’s receipt of kickbacks from subcontractors was both criminal fraud and a material breach of the contract, which eliminated the Government’s obligation to reimburse the contractor for additional work, even if that work was not itself … Continue Reading
New government contractors are often surprised to learn that a standard clause in federal contracting gives the government the right to terminate contracts for convenience. In day-to-day discussions, it is not uncommon for government contractors to think of termination for convenience as equivalent to termination without cause, as opposed to “for cause” termination for default. … Continue Reading
