Claims and Contract Disputes

In TranBen, Ltd. v. Department of Transportation, CBCA 5448 (Jan. 26, 2017), the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (“Board”) recently applied a restrictive view of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing under an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (“IDIQ”) contract.  In its appeal seeking almost $14 million, TranBen, Ltd. (“TranBen”) alleged that the Department of Transportation (“DOT” or “Government”) breached the implied duty by misleading the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) about the availability of paper vouchers in order to receive IRS guidance allowing DOT to issue transit subsidies on debit cards, instead of vouchers, without rendering them taxable.  The Board dismissed the appeal for failure to state a claim in a troubling decision that calls into question the viability of the implied duty under an IDIQ contract where the Government satisfies its minimum ordering obligation.  At the very least, the Board’s decision indicates contractors should be even more vigilant, at the early stages of IDIQ contract formation, to ensure that their legitimate expectations are protected through express contract language. 
Continue Reading CBCA Narrows Scope of Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in IDIQ Contracts

The Ninth Circuit recently confirmed that predicting the future with near certainty is not required when seeking to protect information from disclosure under Exemption 4 of FOIA. In a recent unpublished decision, the Ninth Circuit concluded that Sikorsky Aircraft’s small business subcontracting plan was “confidential commercial or financial information” exempt from disclosure under Freedom of Information Act, Exemption 4. See Am. Small Business League v. Department of Defense, No. 15-15120, 2017 WL 65399 (9th Cir. Jan. 6, 2017) (ASBL II). Although the non-precedential decision merely reaffirmed the existing standard for determining competitive harm, the decision was significant because it rejected the lower court’s position that Exemption 4 required a party to show that release in effect “would” produce competitive harm rather than simply “could” lead to such harm.  In addition, the ruling confirmed that employee contact information and signatures are protected from disclosure by Exemption 6 (Personal Privacy).
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Rejects Heightened Standard for Demonstrating Likelihood of Competitive Harm Under FOIA Exemption 4

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 more than $100 million from LMIS for allegedly breaching an obligation to manage subcontracts. In DCAA’s reading, this obligation was extensive and required a number of concrete actions by the prime contractor.
Continue Reading ASBCA Shoots Down DCAA Overreach on Responsibility to Manage Subcontractors

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 payment clause requires the government to present a “final [payment] voucher” and “draft release of claims” form to the contractor—as opposed to the typical reverse scenario prescribed by FAR 52.232-5(h)—and the contractor fails to sign and return that voucher and release of claims form before the deadline stated therein?  According to the CBCA in Ahtna Envtl., Inc. v. Dept. of Transp., CBCA 5456 (December 22, 2016) (AEI), this type of self-effectuating deemed release will not bar a contractor’s claim when the government knew about the claim and considered it despite the alleged release.

Continue reading for a summary of the AEI decision and our key takeaways.
Continue Reading A self-effectuating deemed release of claims? Say it ain’t so.

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.  Did you sign that release and realize its impact?

The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals’ (CBCA) recent decision in Perry Bartsch Jr., Constr. Co. v. Dept. of the Int., CBCA 4865, 5071 (December 8, 2016) helps contractors answer these questions and understand the scope and contours of a release.  Generally, this case offers  important guidance about how to draft a release in an effective and narrow way, and the types of factors that the CBCA will consider when interpreting a release.  Specifically, this decision addresses the issue of whether an apparent global release of claims, contained in just one of many contract modifications, can extinguish all potential claims against the Government.

For a more complete review of Bartsch and its implications, please continue reading.Continue Reading When does a contract release release a claim? A classic contract tongue twister.

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 are at risk, the next round of incremental funding is unlikely to arrive, and new contract awards and program approvals will be scarce.  These pitfalls, however, can be mitigated—and even exploited—by diligent contractors.

Continue Reading Déjà Vu: Continuing Resolution Raises Potential Pitfalls for Contractors

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 protected employee activity that was in furtherance of an FCA action, “including investigation for, initiation of, testimony for, or assistance” in an FCA action.  Under that version of the whistleblower provision, courts had held that a retaliation suit under the FCA would only pass muster if “an employee engages in protected activity when litigation is a distinct possibility, when the conduct reasonably could lead to a viable FCA action, or when . . . litigation is a reasonable possibility.”  Amendments to the FCA in 2009 and 2010, however, broadened coverage of the whistleblower provision, creating two prongs of protected activity: (1) “lawful acts done by the employee . . . in furtherance of an action under [the FCA]”; and (2) “other efforts to stop 1 or more violations” of the FCA.  31 U.S.C. § 3730(h).  In this case, Carlson v. Dyncorp Int’l LLC, the Fourth Circuit held that the “distinct possibility” standard does not apply to the second prong of the whistleblower provision, as that prong was intended to be broader than the first prong. This case may open the door to broader liability for contractors who take adverse employment actions against employees who attempt to stop or prevent conduct that the employee reasonably believes to be in violation of the FCA.  Notably, in Carlson, the Fourth Circuit nevertheless affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s retaliation lawsuit because the plaintiff was alleging that his contractor-employer was under-billing the government and he could not reasonably believe that that practice would lead to a violation of the FCA. 
Continue Reading Employee Efforts to Stop Employer FCA Violation is Protected Activity Even When No Distinct Possibility of FCA Litigation, says Fourth Circuit

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, and the impact of criminal plea agreements and civil False Claims Act settlements on contract disputes.
Continue Reading ASBCA Addresses CDA Jurisdiction Over Claims Involving Contractor Fraud

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 a contracting officer’s final decision about a claim that arises out of the facts considered by GAO.  Noting that this question did not appear to have yet been decided, the Board engaged in a fulsome comparison of the authority and available remedies at GAO and the CBCA, as it refused to accept the National Park Service’s (“NPS” or “agency”) argument that Optimum Services, Inc.’s (“OSI”) appeal should be dismissed because of the doctrine of res judicata, which generally precludes a party to a lawsuit from re-litigating aspects of a case that were decided in a prior proceeding by a tribunal of competent jurisdiction and authority to grant the relief sought in the later proceeding.  This case’s reasoning and result can be reassuring to contractors who may find themselves responding to an agency’s motion to dismiss based on an erroneous assertion that another forum’s pronouncement on an issue precludes them from having their day in court. 
Continue Reading The CBCA Chews Up Agency’s Erroneous Allegation that Contractor Is Getting a ‘Second Bite at the Apple’

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 Afghan Active Group (AAG), ASBCA No. 6037, 2016 WL 1715461 (Apr. 14, 2016) are somewhat unusual, the decision illustrates the Board’s willingness to elevate substance over form when it comes to enforcing its jurisdictional timeliness requirements.
Continue Reading Contractor’s Timely Notice to the CO of an ‘Intent to Appeal’ is Good Enough for the ASBCA