Construction Contracting

On Friday, February 24, 2017, the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection published a presolicitation notice announcing its intent to issue a solicitation “for the design and build of several prototype wall structures in the vicinity of the United States border with Mexico.”  At least on the government procurement front, this notice marks the most concrete indication of the federal government’s intent to construct a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico.
Continue Reading DHS Announces Intent to Award Contracts for Border-Wall “Prototypes” by Mid-April

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.

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

Some Washingtonians stroll through CityCenterDC on shopping sprees at “upscale retail stores such as Hermès, Boss, and Louis Vuitton,” or meet for lunch at “high-end restaurants such as DBGB and Centrolina.”  Covington lawyers watch these scenes from our offices in the northwest corner of CityCenterDC, where we recently analyzed the D.C. Circuit’s opinion holding that we and our luxury-minded fellow tenants work in a mixed-use development that is not subject to the Davis-Bacon Act.  The court’s opinion was a stern rebuff to the Department of Labor, which had “advanced a novel reading of the Davis-Bacon Act that would significantly enlarge the number and kinds of construction projects covered by the Act.” 
Continue Reading D.C. Circuit Declines to Extend Davis-Bacon Act

On December 22, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia invalidated a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) memorandum setting out the Agency’s position on the “Buy America” waiver for steel manufactured products.  The decision creates uncertainty as to the proper administration of Buy America requirements, and will likely reduce demand for steel and iron imports used in federally-funded transportation projects.
Continue Reading District Court Invalidates Important FHWA Exemptions to the “Buy America” Requirement

On October 8, 2015, the U.S. Department of Defense (“DoD”), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”), and the U.S. General Services Administration (“GSA”) jointly proposed a change to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) that would make it more difficult for agencies to bypass the existing five-bidder limitation in two-phase procurements…
Continue Reading “We Mean It, Maaannnn”—New Proposed Regulation Seeks to Encourage Higher-Quality Proposals by Boosting Enforcement of Five-Bidder Limit in Two-Phase Procurements for High-Value Construction Contracts

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 the CDA, a subcontractor generally may only prosecute an appeal against the government if its appeal is “sponsored” by a contractor that is a party to the government contract (e.g., the prime contractor). If such an appeal is not properly sponsored, it could be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Continue Reading CBCA Takes Pragmatic View When Finding Jurisdiction Over A Sponsored-Subcontractor CDA Appeal

Last week, in an important decision for contingency contractors supporting U.S. stability operations overseas, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) reaffirmed that the Defense Base Act (DBA) prescribes the exclusive remedies available to employees of government contractors who are injured while working abroad. In doing so, the D.C. Circuit sent injured contractor workers, turned would-be tort plaintiffs, a clear message: federal courts will dismiss tort lawsuits alleging that a DBA-covered government contractor wrongfully−or even intentionally−interfered with an employee’s receipt of DBA benefits.

Enacted in 1941, the DBA establishes a comprehensive workers’ compensation scheme for employees of government contractors who are killed or injured while providing services to the government outside the United States. See 42 U.S.C. § 1651 et seq. The DBA, which incorporates most of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq, includes a provision that makes contractors’ liability under the statute “exclusive”−that is, putative plaintiffs are barred from suing their employers for damages beyond the statutory compensation scheme established by Congress. See id. § 1651(c) (“The liability of an employer . . . shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability . . .”) (emphasis added).

Despite the Act’s broad exclusivity provision, in Brink v. Continental Insur. Co., an estimated class of 10,000 contractor employees who were injured in Iraq and Afghanistan brought a purported class-action lawsuit for $2 billion against dozens of government contractors, alleging that the contractors conspired with their respective insurance carriers to deny the workers DBA benefits. But a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit unanimously rejected plaintiffs-appellants’ claims and, in a 17-page opinion, made five key findings that will help government contractors defend similar lawsuits in the future.
Continue Reading The D.C. Circuit’s Message to Injured Government Contractor Employees: ‘There’s an Exclusive Remedy For That’

Over the past year, we have been tracking the uptick in executive and regulatory actions affecting the labor and employment practices of government contractors.  Last Friday, the D.C. Circuit upheld one of those regulations.  The decision concludes the first skirmish in what promises to be a lengthy and high-stakes legal battle involving industry, Congress, and the Administration.
Continue Reading D.C. Circuit Upholds Employment Regulations

Last week, the U.S. Department of Labor announced that it has recovered $1,914,681.50 in back wages and fringe benefits allegedly owed to 147 workers of a Nevada-based company that provided construction services as a subcontractor at the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project, a federally supported solar power development located…

Continue Reading Construction Company on a Federally Assisted Project Pays Nearly $2 Million After Labor Department Investigation