Photo of Skye Mathieson

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.

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

In MLU Services, Inc. v. Department of Homeland Security, CBCA No. 8002, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (Board) denied a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, which the agency filed just four days after MLU failed to timely submit one of its initial pleadings.

This case

On April 22, 2024, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Final Rule significantly revising the Uniform Guidance for grants, cooperative agreements, and other federal financial assistance.  The Final Rule (titled “OMB Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance”), and OMB’s accompanying memorandum to agencies and reference guide, state that the revisions aim to streamline and clarify the grant rules and improve management, transparency, and oversight of federal financial assistance.  Agencies must implement the Final Rule by October 1, 2024; however, agencies may apply it to federal awards as early as June 21, 2024.Continue Reading OMB Final Rule Rewrites the Uniform Guidance for Grants, Cooperative Agreements, and Other Federal Financial Assistance

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in Avue Technologies Corp. v. Department of Health and Human Services that an appellant’s non-frivolous allegation of a contract with the government via an end-user license agreement (EULA) incorporated into another contractor’s Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) agreement was sufficient to establish jurisdiction under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA).Continue Reading Just Trust Me on This: Allegation of Contract’s Existence Is Sufficient to Establish Jurisdiction Under Contract Disputes Act

On December 19, 2023, the United States District Court for the District of Utah denied summary judgment in part to Vanderlande Industries (Vanderlande), holding that a reasonable jury could find that Vanderlande negligently misrepresented the viability of subcontractor Ludvik Electric Co.’s (Ludvik) pass-through claims during the parties’ settlement negotiations over the claims. Continue Reading Contractor Discovers the High Cost of Misrepresenting a Material Fact: Summary Judgment Denied in Part 

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

Flatland Realty, LLC, ASBCA No. 63409, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) granted an appeal seeking damages, plus interest, from an improper termination for default.  In an uncommon result, the Board awarded lost profit expectancy damages because the government had improperly terminated the contract, which did not incorporate a termination for convenience clause.Continue Reading Board “Evicts” Government Termination: Contractor Awarded Expected Lost Profits for Improper Lease Termination

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

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.” Continue Reading Sum-Thing Is Missing from the Contract Disputes Act: Federal Circuit Holds that “Sum Certain” Requirement is Non-Jurisdictional

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