On November 2, 2023, the Department of Defense (DoD) released its 2023 DoD Data, Analytics, and Artificial Intelligence Adoption Strategy (2023 Strategy), and an accompanying Fact Sheet, to accelerate the adoption of analytics, data, and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies that will enable better and faster decision-making at all levels and across the DoD. The 2023 Strategy builds upon and supersedes the DoD’s first AI Strategy published in 2019, reported on here, and the revised Data Strategy published in 2020 to continue the DoD’s digital transformation, unifying previous guidance and enabling stronger alignment and synchronization to scale advanced capabilities for use across the DoD.
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
Biden’s Executive Order on Artificial Intelligence
On October 30, 2023, President Biden released an Executive Order (EO) on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI). This landmark EO seeks to advance the safe and secure development and deployment of AI by implementing a society-wide effort across government, the private sector, academia, and civil society to harness “AI for good,” while mitigating its substantial risks.
Continue Reading Biden’s Executive Order on Artificial Intelligence
Congress Discusses How To Govern The Acquisition of AI
On September 14, 2023, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs hosted a hearing called “Governing AI Through Acquisition and Procurement” (Hearing). Senator Gary Peters (D-MI) opened the Hearing, explaining that the purpose was to explore how the U.S. government would purchase AI technologies and establish guidelines and standards for the development and use of those technologies. Sen. Peters noted that over half of AI tools used by the federal government are purchased from commercial vendors and that the U.S. government should be careful in its procurement and use of these tools.
The hearing covered a wide range of topics, including: (i) how the U.S. government can establish standards for AI data to better serve the needs of AI vendors/contractors when procuring AI technology; (ii) potential changes to procurement training; (iii) how the acquisition process can be changed to adapt to the unique demands of AI procurement; (iv) how the procurement process can be used to influence the development of AI technologies; and (v) other topics including potential censorship, AI bias, and government overreach as discussed below.
Continue Reading Congress Discusses How To Govern The Acquisition of AI
Common Questions—and Answers—About A Potential Government Shutdown
Congress has not passed crucial funding bills for the start of the fiscal year 2024. If Congress does not act by September 30, the government may be forced to shut down for lack of funding. While Congress may yet act, agencies across the government are preparing for a shutdown, and contractors should do so as well.
The issues that contractors would face under a government shutdown may vary with the circumstances of individual contracts, but there are a number of common considerations.
Continue Reading Common Questions—and Answers—About A Potential Government Shutdown
Strike When the Iron is Hot: Court of Federal Claims Found a Contractor’s Defense to a Termination Was Precluded by its Failure to Previously Assert Those Claims in Litigation Before the ASBCA
On August 25, 2023, in ECC CENTCOM Constructors, LLC v. United States, COFC No. 21-1169, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (“the Court” or “COFC”) barred ECC CENTCOM Constructors, LLC (“ECC”) from asserting claims that should have been asserted before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”) citing the doctrine of claim preclusion.
At the ASBCA, ECC had appealed a termination for default and sought time extensions and damages due to excusable delay. The Board dismissed ECC’s appeal, finding that the Contracting Officer (“CO”) acted reasonably in terminating the contract and finding that ECC failed to present its excusable delay claims to the CO as required under M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2010). ECC requested a stay to allow it time to present its delay claims to the CO, but the Board denied the request stating that it was untimely and futile because ECC’s own expert testified that less than half of the delays were excusable, which meant that the CO’s termination decision would still be justified. ECC appealed the ASBCA’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where the Board’s decision was affirmed.
COVID Costs Claim Succeeds: Contractor Entitled to Recover for Performance of Contract Despite Base Closure
In StructSure Projects, Inc., ASBCA No. 62927, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) granted an appeal seeking recovery for increased costs resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. The underlying task order involved design and alteration services for existing medical facilities at Travis Air Force Base, and included a specific Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) for the provision of temporary phasing facilities that the Government could use while the construction work was ongoing. When the pandemic began in March 2020, StructSure and its subcontractors had to stop their on-site construction work for 44 days because the Government had limited base access for contractors deemed to be not mission-essential. StructSure later sought schedule and monetary relief, but the Government only granted schedule extensions under the Default clause.
Sum-Thing Is Missing from the Contract Disputes Act: Federal Circuit Holds that “Sum Certain” Requirement is Non-Jurisdictional
In ECC Int’l Constructors Inc. v. Army, No. 2021-2323 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 22, 2023), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned longstanding precedent by holding that the requirement to state a “sum certain” in a claim submitted under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) is not a jurisdictional requirement. The Court based its decision on recent Supreme Court guidance to “treat a procedural requirement as jurisdictional only if Congress ‘clearly states’ that it is.” The Court parsed the CDA and found that Congress never used the words “sum certain,” evidencing that Congress did not intend the requirement to be jurisdictional. This is important because jurisdictional requirements can be raised at any time—even years after the claim was filed and a full hearing on the merits was held—and result in dismissal of the case. The Court explained that the “sum certain” is “nonetheless a mandatory rule that claimants must follow.”
Watchdog Says: DoD Needs Department-Wide AI Acquisition Guidance
On June 29, 2023, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released its second report[1] on Department of Defense (DoD) artificial intelligence (AI) acquisition efforts. This latest report examines the DoD’s lack of formal AI acquisition guidance and identifies key principles from the private sector that can be applied to the DoD’s AI acquisition efforts.
Although
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.