Photo of Nicole Owren-WiestPhoto of Skye MathiesonPhoto of Alexandra Barbee-GarrettPhoto of Catherine Shames

In L3 Technologies, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 61811, et al. (Mar. 1, 2021), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) granted the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal, over the contractor’s objection, following the Contracting Officer’s (CO) unequivocal withdrawal of its cost disallowance claims. The contractor argued that its case was not moot despite

Photo of Steve McBradyPhoto of Nicole Owren-WiestPhoto of Charles BaekPhoto of Michelle ColemanPhoto of Skye MathiesonPhoto of Catherine Shames

In Creative Management Services, LLC, dba MC-2 v. U.S. (Feb. 26, 2021), the Federal Circuit affirmed a Court of Federal Claims decision dismissing a contractor’s appeal of the government’s Contract Disputes Act (CDA) claim as untimely, holding that the contractor appealed more than 12 months after receiving a contracting officer’s (CO) final decision. On appeal, the contractor alleged that the final decision was not a valid claim because it did not state a “sum certain” as required by the CDA, and this deficiency meant that the 12-month appeal period had not started to run.

The contractor was awarded a General Services Administration (GSA) task order to provide marketing and logistical support for an annual GSA conference, and was required to keep the revenue it collected for the conference in a trust account. When GSA canceled the conference in the fourth year and asked the contractor to return all remaining money in the trust account, the contractor refused and submitted a termination for convenience proposal to GSA. GSA subsequently issued two letters to the contractor demanding an accounting of the trust account and all money that remained in it. The CO then issued a final decision on the contractor’s termination proposal and on GSA’s claim to the remaining funds in the trust account, without providing a dollar amount. The contractor filed suit three years after the final decision was issued, challenging the government’s claim to the trust account funds.


Continue Reading Show Me the Money? When a Sum Approximate Counts as a Sum Certain

Photo of Olivia LynchPhoto of Amy Laderberg O'SullivanPhoto of Rob Sneckenberg

In this episode, hosts Rob Sneckenberg and Olivia Lynch are joined by colleague Amy O’Sullivan to discuss the Court of Federal Claims’ recent decision in HWI Gear, Inc., which held that the solicitation’s inclusion in full of the text of FAR 52.219-28 required a small business offeror to recertify its size status prior to award

Photo of Jonathan M. BakerPhoto of John E. McCarthy Jr.Photo of Nicole Owren-WiestPhoto of Abi Stokes

In Bitmanagement Software GmbH v. United States, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a decision by the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) that found the Navy was not liable for copyright infringement even though it was undisputed that the Navy made 429,604 copies of Bitmanagement’s BS Contact Geo software when it only paid for

Photo of Steve McBradyPhoto of Nicole Owren-WiestPhoto of Charles BaekPhoto of Michelle ColemanPhoto of John Nakoneczny

In BAE Systems Ordnance Systems, Inc., ASBCA No. 62416 (February 10, 2021), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals addressed whether an request for equitable adjustment (REA) constituted a Contract Disputes Act (CDA) claim. BAE submitted a series of REAs that it consistently labeled and characterized as such and certified in accordance with

Photo of Brian Tully McLaughlinPhoto of Michael ShaheenPhoto of Lyndsay Gorton

In General Medicine, P.C. v. United States, No. 3:20-mc-00053, the District Court for the Southern District of Illinois held that a third party has standing to challenge a False Claims Act (FCA) civil investigative demand (CID) that is issued to another entity. In that case, General Medicine, a company that employs physicians and nurse

Photo of Peter J. EyrePhoto of Steve McBradyPhoto of Nicole Owren-WiestPhoto of J. Chris HailePhoto of Brian Tully McLaughlinPhoto of Skye MathiesonPhoto of Charles BaekPhoto of John NakonecznyPhoto of Michelle Coleman

On December 9, 2020, the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General (DoD OIG) released its Audit of Department of Defense Implementation of Section 3610 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act.  The audit assesses the DoD’s issuance of relief under Section 3610, which authorizes certain agencies to reimburse contractors for any

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,

Photo of John E. McCarthy Jr.Photo of Jonathan M. BakerPhoto of Skye MathiesonPhoto of M.Yuan ZhouPhoto of Christopher D. GarciaPhoto of Nicole Owren-Wiest

On June 27, 2018, in Appeal of CiyaSoft Corporation, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals held that the Government can be bound by terms of a commercial software license agreement that the contracting officer (CO) has neither negotiated nor seen.  CiyaSoft Corporation (CiyaSoft) submitted a claim asserting that the Army had breached its contract to purchase computer software by using more copies of the software than were permitted by the contract.  The Army denied the claim, in part, because the contract contained no terms specifying how the government would secure and protect the software.  Instead, CiyaSoft had included license terms limiting the software’s use (i) inside the box containing the CDs with the software, (ii) on a piece of paper inside the software’s shrinkwrap, and (iii) in clickwrap that was displayed during the software’s installation process.  On appeal, the Board found that although the contract included no license terms and the CO never saw or discussed with CiyaSoft the license terms that accompanied the software delivery, the CO had a duty to inquire about what use rights applied to the software and the failure to do so imputed knowledge of the licensing terms on the Army.  Pointing to the longstanding policy embodied in the FAR that that the government should accept commercial computer license terms that are customarily provided to other purchasers, the Board held that “the government can be bound by the terms of a commercial software license it has neither negotiated nor seen prior to the receipt of the software, so long as the terms are consistent with those customarily provided by the vendor to other purchasers and do not otherwise violate federal law.”
Continue Reading Commercial License Terms May Govern Even Without Contracting Officer Knowledge

Photo of Crowell & Moring

Crowell & Moring is hosting Government Contracts 101 in our Washington, D.C., office on Thursday, October 26, 2017.  This all-day event will last from 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. at 1001 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W., and provide an overview of the full scope of issues that government contractors face on a daily basis.  We will cover