On June 14, we presented a webinar titled “Frequently Asked Questions About Requests for Equitable Adjustment and Contract Disputes Act Claims.” The webinar featured some of the most common questions we encounter in the field regarding CDA claims and REAs, as well as a discussion of procedural, substantive, and business considerations that go into the
Join us for a webinar titled “Government Contracts Recovery: ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ About Requests for Equitable Adjustments and CDA Claims.” During the 60-minute webinar, a team of claims professionals from C&M’s Government Contractor Recovery Practice will address some FAQs that arise in the context of contractor claims / REAs, and solicit audience questions, as we
In a recent decision, the Court of Federal Claims rejected the Government’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed under the Tucker Act seeking to recover “risk corridors” payments pursuant to §1342 of the Affordable Care Act. In Health Republic Insurance Co. v. U.S. (Jan. 10, 2017), the Court held that “HHS is required to make
ABS Development Corp. (ASBCA Nov. 17, 2016) highlights the importance of providing a fully-compliant certification for CDA claims over $100,000—which includes, according to the Board, the requirement for contractors to provide an identifiable and verifiable handwritten signature or digital e-signature. As the contractor in ABS discovered, the Board considers “typewritten” signatures, regardless of font, to be insufficient.
In ABS, the Board dismissed for lack of jurisdiction certain contractor claims that had been “certified” by means of typewritten names (in signature-font) because a typewritten name “cannot be authenticated, and, therefore, is not a signature.” The Board made clear that the CDA’s purpose is to bind contractors by means of a signed certificate that “cannot be easily disavowed by the purported author.” The Board explained that a signature “is a discrete, verifiable symbol that is sufficiently distinguishable to authenticate that the certification was issued with the purported author’s knowledge and consent or to establish his intent to certify.” Because anyone could type another person’s name on a signature block, the purported author could
disavow the certification and the signature would be nearly impossible to authenticate.Continue Reading The Pen is Mightier: Typewritten Signature Invalidates CDA Claim
In AeroVironment, Inc. (Mar. 30, 2016), following an apparent settlement of the government’s cost disallowance claim, the ASBCA denied the government’s request to amend its answer (in order to “clarify” entitlement to additional quantum) because the proposed amendments constituted new “claims” that required new final decisions. Acknowledging that parties may ordinarily revise quantum without
On Thursday, November 19, Crowell & Moring attorneys will discuss using contractor claims as a recovery mechanism under U.S. Government contracts on WFED radio. Listen in at 12:30 pm EST as these practitioners discuss how contractors can use claims as part of an overall strategy to ensure that both parties comply with contract terms and
On October 20, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals published its FY 2015 Report of Transactions and Proceedings. The report provides statistics regarding the adjudication of appeals between contractors and the Army, Navy, Air Force, Corps of Engineers, DLA, DCMA, other Defense agencies, CIA, NASA, and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. This year’s
In Appeals of LRV Environmental, Inc., the ASBCA considered the issue of whether or not the Government’s “reconsideration” of a contracting officer’s final decision acts to re-set the 90-day clock for jurisdictional purposes under the CDA. In LRV, the CO issued a final decision, and subsequently reconsidered a portion of that decision, leading
On April 8, Crowell & Moring lawyers will present “The World of Sponsored Claims – Being Caught in the Middle,” at a forum hosted by the Association of Corporate Counsel of the National Capital Region. This forum will be of interest to prime contractors and subcontractors alike, and will focus on some of the key
On February 12, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in K-CON Building Systems, Inc. v. United States, addressing jurisdiction over contractor claims under the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”).
Specifically, K-CON Building Systems explores the implications of claim identification, and whether a contractor can add a new claim to a pending matter when the new claim seeks a different remedy or is based upon a different legal theory. In this case, K-CON Building Systems, Inc. (“K-CON”) contracted with the federal government to construct a “cutter support team building” for the U.S. Coast Guard. The contract included a liquidated damages clause and obligated K-CON to pay $589 for each day of delay. When K-CON completed the building 186 days after the contract’s completion date, the Coast Guard withheld $109,554 in liquidated damages due to alleged delay.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Permits Contractor to Add New Claim to Pending Complaint