Photo of Steve McBradyPhoto of Nicole Owren-WiestPhoto of Michelle ColemanPhoto of Skye MathiesonPhoto of Charles Baek

In JKB Solutions and Servs., LLC, the Court of Federal Claims denied the contractor’s breach claim and held that the Government constructively terminated the contract for convenience. At issue was an Army contract to provide instructors for the Army’s Operation Contract Support program. The contract required JKB to perform 14 classes per task order, but the Army ordered fewer than 14 classes for all three task orders. In the motion to dismiss stage, the Court rejected the Army’s argument that the contract unambiguously required the Army to pay for only the services it ordered. The court instead found on the merits that the Army constructively terminated the contract for convenience and, therefore, did not breach it, even though the Army did not actually terminate the contract for convenience. In invoking the constructive termination for convenience doctrine on behalf of the Army, the Court found that (1) the Army did not act in bad faith by constructively terminating the contract because the Army never explicitly invoked the doctrine (the Court did) and (2) the Army could have invoked its right to terminate under the circumstances. The Court also ruled that since JKB did not submit a termination for convenience settlement proposal or ask for termination costs in its complaint, JKB was not entitled to recover any costs.

While this case appears to be an outlier in the longstanding termination for convenience jurisprudence, particularly those principles that preclude invocation of constructive termination for convenience in certain circumstances—e.g., after the performance period ends, or in order to circumvent an otherwise alleged breach—contractors should take caution in similar circumstances. When the Government breaches its ordering/payment obligations by reducing the scope of work, and depending on the extent of the reduction, contractors should promptly consider whether to request an equitable adjustment for a deductive change, or submit a termination for convenience settlement proposal to preserve the ability to recover termination settlement costs.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Steve McBrady Steve McBrady

Steve McBrady is a partner and co-chair of Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group. He also serves as a member of the firm’s Finance and Strategic Growth Committees, where he has played a leading role in expanding client service offerings throughout the U.S.…

Steve McBrady is a partner and co-chair of Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group. He also serves as a member of the firm’s Finance and Strategic Growth Committees, where he has played a leading role in expanding client service offerings throughout the U.S., Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

In recent years, Steve has received the National Law Journal’s “Winning Litigator” award as a lawyer who has “tackled some of the most widely watched cases of the year,” as well as the “D.C. Trailblazer” award, recognizing lawyers who have “made significant marks on the practice.” In 2018, he was named “Government Contracts MVP” by Law360.

Photo of Nicole Owren-Wiest Nicole Owren-Wiest

Nicole Owren-Wiest is a partner and member of the Steering Committee of Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. Nicole is nationally ranked by Chambers USA in Government Contracts and a recognized leader in two of the most…

Nicole Owren-Wiest is a partner and member of the Steering Committee of Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. Nicole is nationally ranked by Chambers USA in Government Contracts and a recognized leader in two of the most complex areas in government contracting: accounting, cost, and pricing, and intellectual property/data rights. With over 20 years’ experience, Nicole has a broad counseling and dispute-resolution practice and leads the Group’s cost accounting practice, which focuses on helping clients navigate the government’s complex cost and pricing rules, including the FAR Part 31 cost principles, the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS), and Truth in Negotiations Act/Truthful Cost or Pricing Data (defective pricing).

Photo of Michelle Coleman Michelle Coleman

Michelle D. Coleman is a counsel in the Government Contracts Group in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office. Michelle advises clients from diverse industries in connection with contract disputes and other government contract matters, including Contract Disputes Act (CDA) claims and requests for…

Michelle D. Coleman is a counsel in the Government Contracts Group in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office. Michelle advises clients from diverse industries in connection with contract disputes and other government contract matters, including Contract Disputes Act (CDA) claims and requests for equitable adjustments, fiscal law questions, prime-sub disputes, and bid protests.

Photo of Skye Mathieson Skye Mathieson

Skye Mathieson is a counsel in the Government Contracts Group in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office. He works with and advises clients from diverse industries on a wide array of matters, including contract performance disputes (CDA claims and equitable adjustments), cost allowability…

Skye Mathieson is a counsel in the Government Contracts Group in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office. He works with and advises clients from diverse industries on a wide array of matters, including contract performance disputes (CDA claims and equitable adjustments), cost allowability issues, defective pricing, fiscal law questions, prime-sub disputes, bid protests, internal investigations, and responding to DCAA audits. Prior to joining Crowell & Moring, Skye spent several years as a trial attorney at the procurement litigation division of the Air Force Headquarters for Legal Operations, where he pioneered the seminal “Laguna Defense” that is now widely raised and litigated at the Boards of Contract Appeals.

Photo of Charles Baek Charles Baek

Charles Baek is a counsel in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office, where he practices in the Government Contracts Group.

Charles represents government contractors in both litigation and counseling matters. His practice focuses on contract claims/disputes under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), litigation…

Charles Baek is a counsel in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office, where he practices in the Government Contracts Group.

Charles represents government contractors in both litigation and counseling matters. His practice focuses on contract claims/disputes under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), litigation before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA), federal regulatory and ethics compliance and due diligence, bid protests before the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and False Claims Act (FCA) investigations. His practice also includes state contracting due diligence and litigation before the Court of Federal Claims.