Photo of Steve McBradyPhoto of Peter J. EyrePhoto of Trina Fairley BarlowPhoto of Robert BurtonPhoto of Rebecca SpringerPhoto of Daniel R. FormanPhoto of Nicole Owren-WiestPhoto of J. Chris Haile

Congress has not passed crucial funding bills for the start of FY 2022 and, on September 28, 2021, Treasury Secretary Yellen informed Congress that Treasury now estimates that the Federal government will reach the debt ceiling by October 18.  As a result, we again face the prospect of a government shutdown for lack of funding.  While Congress may yet take action, agencies across the government are likely to begin taking steps to prepare for a shutdown, and contractors should do so as well.

Although the issues that contractors would face under a government shutdown may vary with the circumstances of individual contracts, there are a number of common considerations. Based on our experience under prior Federal government shutdowns, these include:

  • Where Is the Money? For incrementally funded contracts, a “shutdown” situation is likely similar to those experienced at the end of any fiscal year when there is a “gap” between appropriations. Contractors will need to consider the implications of the various standard clauses (Limitation of Costs, Limitation of Funds, Limitation of Government Obligations) that may affect the government’s obligation to pay costs in excess of the amounts already obligated to their contracts. Of particular concern will be the standard provisions in those clauses that may limit the government’s liability for termination costs in the event that the contracts are eventually terminated without new funding. Contractors will need to decide whether to continue to perform or to take the actions authorized when funding is insufficient to pay for anticipated costs. But for contracts that are fully funded or that have incremental funding sufficient to cover all anticipated costs, including termination costs, a shutdown would not normally create new funding risks.

  • Delay and Disruption. Due to the unavailability of appropriated funds, contractors may be unable to access closed government facilities or obtain timely approvals, directions or support from the government. For example, a contractor that performs services in a federal facility may find that the facility is closed, so the contractor’s employees do not have access to their workplace. In that situation, contractors will need to decide whether to (1) continue to pay employees for idle time caused by the shutdown, (2) force employees to take vacation or other paid leave for the duration of the shutdown, or (3) furlough or lay off employees. In connection with those decisions, contractors need to consider not only their contractual requirements, but also the applicability and requirements of federal, state, and local labor and employment laws (such as WARN Acts), the terms of their employment contracts and collective bargaining agreements, the impact that their decisions may have on employee relations, and other factors. In a situation in which the duration of the shutdown is unclear, those decisions can be even more difficult, involving a variety of competing and largely unattractive options.
  • Remedy. Contract type and the availability of a remedy from the government for the consequences of a shutdown will also be important in the decision-making process. For contractors with cost-reimbursement contracts, the reasonable costs of coping with a shutdown should be recoverable, although there may be issues about the allocability and allowability of specific items of cost. On fixed-price contracts, any recovery from the government will likely depend on whether the contractor is entitled to an equitable adjustment. And, on T&M contracts, there are likely to be contract-specific issues about whether the contractor is entitled to be paid under the contract for idle time or would need to make a claim for an equitable adjustment. Again, every situation should be assessed separately, based on specific facts. In general, however, contractors should take steps to ensure that any increased costs associated with the shutdown are collected in a way that will support a claim or a request for equitable adjustment if the contractor ultimately decides to pursue one.
  • Mission Creep. Some contractors may actually be approached by their government customer seeking to off-load, at least temporarily, work that cannot be performed by the government during the shutdown period. If the contract funding is available, the government may want to increase the scope of the contract in order to ensure that certain work is not disrupted or delayed. Contractors should ensure that any increases in scope and associated cost or price adjustments are appropriately reflected in a contract modification.
  • Timing of Payment. There may be delays in payment. As noted above, the government’s ultimate legal liability for payments due on contracts that are already funded at the time of the shutdown are unlikely to be at issue, but if the government employees who process contractor invoices and make contractor payments are not at work, there will obviously be no payments made. For large contractors with substantial bills that may involve payments of millions of dollars on a daily basis, the consequences of even a short delay in payment could be economically significant, although probably not an existential threat to the company. For contractors without readily available cash or credit lines, the consequences of more than a brief delay in payment could be more consequential.

A shutdown may not occur and, if it does, may not last long. But prudent contractors will assess the likely impacts of a shutdown on their operations and make contingent plans for dealing with the consequences. Our team is closely monitoring events and standing by to help you work through any issues that may arise.

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 Peter J. Eyre Peter J. Eyre

Peter J. Eyre is a partner and co-chair of Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group. He is also a member of the firm’s Management Board. Peter was named to BTI Consulting Group’s list of “Client Service All-Stars” in 2016, 2017, and 2019 and…

Peter J. Eyre is a partner and co-chair of Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group. He is also a member of the firm’s Management Board. Peter was named to BTI Consulting Group’s list of “Client Service All-Stars” in 2016, 2017, and 2019 and has been named an Acritas Star, Acritas Stars Independently Rated Lawyers (2016, 2017, 2019). He is nationally ranked by Chambers USA in Government Contracts since 2014, and by Super Lawyers since 2017.

Photo of Trina Fairley Barlow Trina Fairley Barlow

Trina Fairley Barlow is co-chair of the firm’s Labor and Employment Group and a member of the firm’s Government Contracts Group. She devotes a substantial portion of her practice to helping government contractors navigate and comply with the myriad laws, regulations, and Executive…

Trina Fairley Barlow is co-chair of the firm’s Labor and Employment Group and a member of the firm’s Government Contracts Group. She devotes a substantial portion of her practice to helping government contractors navigate and comply with the myriad laws, regulations, and Executive Orders which impact employers who are also government contractors. Trina’s experience includes advising federal contractors on the requirements of the Service Contract Act, as well as the Davis Bacon Act, and assisting clients with developing compliance strategies that reduce legal risks. In addition, Trina has defended and advised clients in False Claim Act (FCA) whistleblower retaliation cases and has led large internal investigations that frequently encompass a complex combination of labor and employment, government contracts, and ethics and compliance issues. In connection with such investigations and in other contexts, clients also frequently call upon Trina to assist them with developing compliant policies and internal practices that achieve business objectives while simultaneously reducing potential legal risks and exposure.

Photo of Robert Burton Robert Burton

Robert A. Burton is a partner with Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. He is a nationally-recognized federal procurement attorney, an expert witness on government contracts issues in federal court and arbitration proceedings, and a leader who…

Robert A. Burton is a partner with Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. He is a nationally-recognized federal procurement attorney, an expert witness on government contracts issues in federal court and arbitration proceedings, and a leader who assists government contractors with navigating the complex and rule-driven procurement process. He represents a wide range of companies that conduct business with the federal government, from large defense contractors and systems integrators to small businesses.

Photo of Rebecca Springer Rebecca Springer

Rebecca Springer joined Crowell & Moring in 1999 and currently serves as partner in the Labor & Employment Group. Her practice focuses on labor and employment litigation and counseling, particularly in the area of Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) compliance. Rebecca…

Rebecca Springer joined Crowell & Moring in 1999 and currently serves as partner in the Labor & Employment Group. Her practice focuses on labor and employment litigation and counseling, particularly in the area of Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) compliance. Rebecca has extensive experience conducting audits of personnel practices, preparing Affirmative Action Plans, and counseling clients on affirmative action issues. She also has experience conducting statistical analyses of compensation and other personnel practices for purposes of class action litigation, OFCCP compliance audits, and employer self-audits, and frequently teams with labor economists to analyze compensation and advise clients on potential risks and proactive measures to address compensation disparities.

Photo of Daniel R. Forman Daniel R. Forman

Daniel R. Forman is a partner in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office and is co-chair of the firm’s Government Contracts Group.

Dan’s practice focuses on a wide variety of government procurement law, including bid protests, False Claims Act and qui tam litigation…

Daniel R. Forman is a partner in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office and is co-chair of the firm’s Government Contracts Group.

Dan’s practice focuses on a wide variety of government procurement law, including bid protests, False Claims Act and qui tam litigation, investigations of potential civil and criminal matters, ethics and compliance, contract claims and disputes, GSA schedule contracting, and small disadvantaged business contracting. Dan is also experienced in negotiating and drafting teaming agreements and subcontracts, as well as providing counseling on the interpretation of FAR clauses and solicitations. Dan’s practice also focuses on state and local procurement matters, including State False Claims Act issues, lobbying and contingency payment compliance. He has been involved in bid protest litigation in six states and the District of Columbia. Dan is ranked as a Band 1 ranked attorney by Chambers USA, listed as a two-time Law360 MVP (2015, 2020), was named to Legal 500’s “Hall of Fame” for Government Contracts in their 2020 Guide, is an Acritas Star, named as a Thomson Reuters Stand-Out Lawyer, and was previously named to BTI’s list of “Client Service All-Stars.

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 J. Chris Haile J. Chris Haile

J. Chris Haile is a partner at Crowell & Moring with extensive experience in government procurement law. Mr. Haile litigates disputes and counsels clients in a broad range of government contract matters, with particular emphasis on the resolution of contract disputes. For example…

J. Chris Haile is a partner at Crowell & Moring with extensive experience in government procurement law. Mr. Haile litigates disputes and counsels clients in a broad range of government contract matters, with particular emphasis on the resolution of contract disputes. For example, Mr. Haile has represented clients in matters involving the government’s breach of contract, claims for contract changes, termination for default, termination for convenience, Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA) compliance and defective pricing, commercial-item procurement, contract negotiations, and bid protests. He also represents clients in other related matters, such as investigations and audits by government agencies or inspectors general (IGs), False Claims Act / qui tam relator suits, and disclosures to the U.S. Government.