Photo of Skye Mathieson

Agencies continue to release and refine Section 3610 billing guidelines. There continue to be substantive differences between agencies, creating compliance challenges for contractors. Crowell & Moring continues to track the latest Section 3610 billing guidance. Click here to view the updated table, current as of May 1, 2020.

On April 27, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Maine Cmty. Health Options et al v. United States, ruling in favor of Maine and companion insurers in the long running Affordable Care Act §1342 “risk corridors” litigation, and confirming the government’s obligation to pay insurers approximately $13 billion for their work related

On April 8, 2020, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Acting Principal Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting (DPC) issued Class Deviation 2020-O0013, effective immediately, establishing a new DFARS cost principle entitled DFARS 231.205-79, “CARES Act Section 3610 – Implementation,” which sets forth rules regarding applicability, allowability, and avoiding duplicate payments under Section

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”), passed by Congress today, offers relief specifically targeted to federal contractors whose employees (1) cannot perform work on a “site that has been approved by the Federal Government ” during the COVID-19 public health emergency due to facility closures or other restrictions and (2) cannot

The COVID-19 Pandemic continues to cause disruptions across nearly all industrial sectors, including the government contracting industry.  As contractors attempt to respond to challenges in providing support to government customers, meeting contract and staffing requirements, and adhering to contract terms and a flurry of new federal, state and local directives, companies should be aware of

On February 7, 2020, the ASBCA sustained the appeal of Command Languages, Inc. d/b/a CLI Solutions (CLI) against the Army over increased costs to translate technical manuals. CLI contracted with the Army to translate advanced level armored vehicle maintenance manuals for use by the Afghanistan Army. The advanced level manuals included tasks from basic level

In Tolliver Group, Inc v. U.S. (Jan. 22, 2020), the Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment in favor of a contractor who sought reimbursement of legal fees incurred in successfully defending against a False Claims Act (FCA) suit filed by a relator. The qui tam action arose from a defect in the original contract—the

In Ingham Regional Medical Center v. U.S. (Jan. 6, 2020), the Court of Federal Claims compelled production of certain government investigatory documents that the Court found were not privileged work product prepared “in anticipation of litigation.” The Medical Center sued to recover payments for outpatient healthcare services performed in connection with DoD’s TRICARE program

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

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