Most government contracts include a Changes clause (notably, FAR 52.243-1), which grants the Government the right to order changes to the scope of the contractor’s work. That clause also entitles the contractor to an...more
Under its contract with the Air Force, Aviation Training and Consulting LLC ("ATC") "operates, maintains, supports, and upgrades the Air Force's training systems (or trainers) for B-52 bombers." As did many responsible...more
WHAT: In Aviation Training Consulting, LLC, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) held that it had jurisdiction to hear the contractor’s claim for increased costs to keep its workforce in a ready state during...more
Federal contractors are winning a safeguard against the government’s practice of moving to dismiss cases brought under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) for lack of jurisdiction in the late stages of litigation. Recent...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit broke with earlier precedent and held that the sum certain requirement imposed on contractors is not jurisdictional and therefore cannot be grounds for dismissal late in the...more
WHAT: After previewing earlier this year that it was reconsidering its existing precedent, the Federal Circuit held yesterday that the requirement that contractors state a “sum certain” in claims brought under the Contract...more
One of the most common concerns for federal contractors is delay. Projects can fall behind schedule for a variety of reasons that are outside of the contractor’s control (government-directed changes, differing site...more
Welcome back to our “Lifecycle of a Claim” series. This series explores the Contract Disputes Act claims process, with practical guidance stemming from recent case law every step of the way. Click the subscribe button on this...more
Forty-five years after enactment of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA), contractors and agencies still often struggle to identify what is and isn’t a CDA claim—a term the CDA itself does not define. Until the CDA’s...more
Welcome back to our “Lifecycle of a Claim” series. This series explores the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”) claims process, with practical guidance stemming from recent case law every step of the way. ...more
The Contract Disputes Act allows contractors seeking payment of a claim arising from a contract with the federal government six years from the date it accrued to submit the claim to the contracting officer. Failure to do so...more
The “new normal” at the ASBCA has produced some interesting results for contractors to consider as they formulate and advance contract claims. The Board docketed a near record low number of new appeals during FY 2021. ...more
In a previous post, we discussed the need to include a sum certain as part of a CDA claim. This requirement of course is but one of several needed for a CDA claim to be valid and for the Court of Federal Claims and the boards...more
The Contract Disputes Act establishes the formal process for resolving nearly all claims and disputes that arise under federal government contracts. It is the source of the requirement that contractors certify claims in...more
A letter from the contracting officer unequivocally directing the contractor to exclude specific costs from its cost submissions as unallowable may not be an appealable final decision. Contractors should seek...more
Agency agreements with the ASBCA allow the Board to adjudicate contract disputes outside the purview of the Contract Disputes Act. The ASBCA can take jurisdiction over contract disputes pursuant to agency agreements with...more
In 1901, in rural County Galway, Ireland, my Irish-speaking great-grandparents made their mark (“+”) on the decennial census taken that year. Whether they did so from a lack of literacy, or simply resented the census taker, I...more
In a departure from its prior precedent, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) recently held in Kamaludin Slyman CSC, ASBCA Nos. 62006, 62007, 62008, that a typed name at the end of an email satisfies the...more
Case remanded to Court of Federal Claims to clarify whether CAS Impact Calculation involving multiple unilateral changes may include contractor “offsets” Federal Circuit revives the question of whether the FAR 33.606...more
In June, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) addressed whether it had jurisdiction where a subcontractor pass-through claim was certified under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) by the subcontractor’s...more
Government contractors operate in a constantly changing regulatory environment, and in certain circumstances, a contractor may be contractually entitled to receive a price adjustment when it must comply with a new federal law...more
Two weeks ago, I presented on Common Issues in Government Contract Interpretation. The course examined common issues encountered by government contractors in bidding on and performing government contracts – as well as the...more
In Watts Constructors, LLC, (June 24, 2019), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) provided further guidance on its earlier decision ECC CENTCOM, 18-1 BCA 37,133. ...more
Part 42.15 of the FAR entitles federal contractors to submit comments and receive agency review of an unfavorable performance evaluation in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). If the contractor’s...more
A recent decision by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals underscores the importance of timely filing a certified claim for excusable delay, and the risks of failing to do so. In ECC CENTCOM Constructors, Inc....more