In the Crowell & Moring case Parsons Government Services, Inc. v. Department of Energy, CBCA 7822, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (Board) denied the government’s motion to dismiss concerning Parsons’ claim for additional incentive fee in connection with its performance operating a salt waste processing facility at DOE’s Savannah River Site. The underlying
Eric Herendeen
Eric Herendeen is a counsel in the Government Contracts Group in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office. He advises clients on a wide array of performance dispute issues, including requests for equitable adjustments, CDA claims, cost allowability issues, and prime–sub disputes. He has represented clients before the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In addition to his disputes and litigation practice, Eric has also counseled clients through internal investigations to support disclosures to the government and to advocate before the Department of Justice on False Claims Act matters.
After graduating law school, Eric clerked at the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, where he worked with the judges drafting opinions and mediating cases concerning appeals of CDA claims.
CBCA’s FY 2023 Report – Examining the Numbers
The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) recently published its Annual Report for FY 2023, providing statistics regarding the adjudication of appeals between contractors and civilian agencies such as the Department of State, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the General Services Administration, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior…
ASBCA’s FY 2023 Report – A Look at the Numbers
On November 1, 2023, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) published its FY 2023 Report of Transactions and Proceedings, which provides statistics regarding the adjudication of appeals between contractors and the Army, Navy, Air Force, Corps of Engineers, Central Intelligence Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Contract Management…
Money Talks, But So Do Other Impacts: ASBCA Underscores that a Claim with Possible Financial Impacts Is Not Fundamentally a Monetary Claim Unless It Has No Other Significant Consequences
On May 15, 2023, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA” or “the Board”) in J&J Maintenance, Inc., d/b/a J&J Worldwide Services, ASBCA No. 63013 issued an instructive analysis of its jurisdiction to hear monetary and nonmonetary claims. Partially granting a government motion to dismiss, the ASBCA explained that, if a contractor does not seek monetary relief in its claim to the contracting officer (“CO”), then the contractor cannot seek monetary relief on appeal to the Board. Addressing the contractor’s claim for contract interpretation, however, the Board denied the government’s motion to dismiss and held that, where a contractor can reasonably articulate “significant consequences” of its claim other than the recovery of money, the fact that the claim may also have a financial impact on the parties does not strip the Board of jurisdiction. Continue Reading Money Talks, But So Do Other Impacts: ASBCA Underscores that a Claim with Possible Financial Impacts Is Not Fundamentally a Monetary Claim Unless It Has No Other Significant Consequences
Job Corps Center Prime Contractors Will Now be Subject to the Service Contract Act Requirements
The Department of Labor (“DOL”) recently announced in a July 29, 2022 Change Order notice that the Wage and Hour Division (“WHD”) had revised the Field Operations Handbook (“FOH”) by deleting the exemption under the Service Contract Act (“SCA”) for federal contracts to operate Job Corps Centers. Prime contractors and subcontractors operating these centers will now be subject to the SCA and FAR 52.222-41, Service Contract Labor Standards, according to DOL.
The practical effect of this change is that covered contractors must pay the minimum wages and “bona fide” fringe benefits mandated by the SCA to all covered workers, which includes workers who are “non-exempt” under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The required wages and fringe benefits for these workers are set forth in wage determinations that are incorporated into the applicable contract by the contracting agency. Higher tier contractors must also flow down the SCA Clause (FAR 52.222-41) and all applicable wage determinations to lower tier contractors. All covered contractors must meet the SCA’s posting and recordkeeping requirements. See 29 CFR 4.183, Employees must be notified of compensation required; 29 CFR 4.184, Posting of notice; 29 CFR 4.185, Recordkeeping requirements. Continue Reading Job Corps Center Prime Contractors Will Now be Subject to the Service Contract Act Requirements
Federal Circuit Vacates COFC Decision Entitling Contractor to Damages for Breach of Implied Warranty Because the Contractor Did Not Present the Claim to the CO
In Tolliver Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 2020-2341, 2021 WL 5872256 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 13, 2021), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the Court of Federal Claims’ (“COFC”) decision holding that the contractor was entitled to an equitable adjustment for damages caused by the Government’s breach of the implied warranty that satisfactory contract…