Photo of Skye Mathieson

Skye Mathieson

Subscribe to Skye Mathieson's Posts

Skye Mathieson is a partner in the Government Contracts Group in Crowell & Moring's Washington, D.C. office. He works with and advises clients from diverse industries on a wide array of matters, including contract performance disputes (CDA claims and equitable adjustments), cost allowability issues, defective pricing, fiscal law questions, prime-sub disputes, bid protests, internal investigations, and responding to DCAA audits. Prior to joining Crowell & Moring, Skye spent several years as a trial attorney at the procurement litigation division of the Air Force Headquarters for Legal Operations, where he pioneered the seminal "Laguna Defense" that is now widely raised and litigated at the Boards of Contract Appeals.

Skye has extensive experience litigating cases before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA), the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA), the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the Small Business Administration (SBA). Through this litigation, Skye has gained valuable experience in a wide variety of industries, such as aerospace (fighter jets, satellites, refueling tankers, simulators, and counter-measures), information technology and software development, construction, healthcare services, intelligence gathering, battlefield services and logistics, scrap disposal, base maintenance and repair contracts, and many others.

Skye also has experience counseling and litigating on a broad range of legal issues, including defective pricing, cost disallowances, contract terminations, unique commercial item issues, constructive changes, differing site conditions, statute of limitations problems, CDA jurisdictional hurdles, contract fraud, Government superior knowledge, unabsorbed overhead and Eichleay damages, CICA stays and overrides, and small business issues.

Having advocated and litigated on behalf of both the government and contractors, Skye has unique insights into both parties' perspectives that he leverages when exploring and negotiating settlements or other avenues for alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Where settlements are not possible, Skye embraces opportunities for courtroom advocacy. He has significant trial experience examining both expert and fact witnesses on both direct and cross examination, as well as taking and defending depositions, drafting hearing briefs and dispositive motions, and managing millions of pages of document production.

Skye is an active member of the government contracts community. He is the editor-in-chief of the BCA Bar Journal, a quarterly publication of the Boards of Contract Appeals Bar Association, which allows him to work alongside judges, government attorneys, and in-house counsel in the production of each issue. He is also a member of the ABA Section of Public Contract Law.

Contact:Read more about Skye Mathieson

On February 6, 2025, Crowell & Moring presented a webinar, “The New Normal: What U.S. Government Contractors and Grant Recipients Need to Know About Terminations, Stop Work Orders, Tariffs, and the Path Forward in 2025.”  In this webinar (available here), Crowell & Moring lawyers specializing in U.S. government contracts and grants addressed:Continue Reading What U.S. Government Contractors and Grant Recipients Need To Know About Terminations, Stop Work Orders, Tariffs, and the Path Forward in 2025

In MVL USA, Inc. et al. v. United States, the United States Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) held that the provisions of FAR 22.505, 52.222-33 and 52.222-34 (collectively, the “PLA mandate”), which required the use of project labor agreements (“PLAs”) on large-scale federal construction projects valued above or at a certain threshold, violated the Competition in Contracting Act (“CICA”). As we previously reported here, former-President Biden issued Executive Order 14063 in February 2022, instructing federal agencies to require construction contractors and subcontractors on projects valued at $35 million or more to “agree, for that project, to negotiate or become a party to” a PLA. A few months later, the FAR Council promulgated a final rule implementing the executive order in FAR 22.505, 52.222-33 and 52.222-34. Continue Reading COFC Holds That Federal PLA Mandate Is Unlawful; Reinterprets Blue and Gold Waiver Rule

In a big change for defense contractors, Congress has amended 10 U.S.C. § 3372 to make clear that a Department of Defense (DoD) contracting officer’s unilateral definitization of an undefinitized contract action is directly appealable to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) or the Court of Federal Claims. Congress’s change (made under Section 803 of the Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025) (we report on the FY 2025 NDAA here) is contrary to recent ASBCA and Federal Circuit decisions.Continue Reading Congress Has Spoken: DoD Unilateral Definitizations are Appealable Government Claims

The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA or Board) recently published its Annual Report for FY 2024, providing statistics regarding the adjudication of appeals between contractors and civilian agencies. This year, the civilian agencies with the highest number of docketed claims at the Board were the Department of Veterans Affairs, the General Services Administration, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Agriculture. These agencies accounted for 126, or 76%, of the 165 Contract Disputes Act (CDA) appeals docketed at the Board. Continue Reading CBCA’s FY 2024 Report – Examining the Numbers

On December 17, 2024, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (Board) announced its plan to launch a new Electronic Docketing System (EDS).  Once implemented, the Board will require use of the new EDS for most submissions. 

For individuals already registered with the Government Accountability Office’s Electronic Protest Docketing System (EPDS), the EDS interface…

In Fortis Industries, Inc., CBCA 7967 (Sept. 18, 2024), the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) denied in part the government’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether the contractor released its claims by signing a modification terminating the contract for convenience. During contract performance, the General Services Administration (GSA) imposed monthly deductions to contract payments as a response to certain performance issues. GSA later proposed to terminate the contract for convenience and sent a contract modification stating that all obligations under the contract were concluded except payment for work performed in June 2022. The contractor signed the modification but stated in its transmittal email that it was owed payment for services in May 2022 as well. Continue Reading CBCA Denies the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on an Issue of Fact Regarding the Contractor’s Reservation of Rights via a Transmission Email

In Chugach Federal Solutions, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 62712, et al., the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals held that a contractor could recover its costs for having to quarantine personnel in accordance with government-imposed COVID safety requirements, because the underlying contract contemplated that the contractor would be compensated for complying with any changes to health and safety requirements.Continue Reading So You’re Telling Me There’s a Chance:Contractor Recovers COVID-Related Quarantine Costs

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) recently issued notable reminders to contractors regarding its jurisdictional authority and the importance of timely filing claims.  The Board explained in DSME Construction Co., Ltd., ASBCA 63878 (July 30, 2024), that it may retain jurisdiction over a dispute even when a different forum is listed in the contract.  In Platinum Services., Inc., ASBCA No. 63878 (Aug. 1, 2024), the Board instructed contractors to be mindful of the CDA’s statute of limitations period, even when seeking to amicably resolve a dispute.Continue Reading Know Your Rights: SBCA Issues Two Important Reminders to Contractors

In Portland Mint v. United States, Case No. 22-2154, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reinstated the Portland Mint’s claim that the government breached an implied-in-fact contract to pay the Portland Mint for coins tendered under the government’s Mutilated Coin Redemption Program.  The Court’s decision is a reminder of the jurisdictional importance in pleading a contract as implied-in-fact rather than implied-in-law. Continue Reading Funny Money: Federal Circuit Gives Its Two Cents, Reverses Dismissal of Implied-In-Fact Contract Claim

In Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, ASBCA No. 62209 (a C&M case), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) awarded $131,888,860 in damages plus applicable interest in connection with Lockheed Martin’s claim for the cumulative disruptive impacts it experienced in performing over and above work on the C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-Engining Program. The…