In BGT Holdings, Inv. v. United States, No. 1:18-cv-00178-PEC (Fed. Cir. Dec. 23, 2020), the Federal Circuit held that FAR 52.245-1 requires the Government to consider an equitable adjustment when it fails to provide Government-furnished equipment (GFE) required by the contract. The contract in question required the Government to furnish equipment for the construction
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) Section 3610 — Billing and Contractual Relief for Government Contractors When Employees Cannot Work due to the COVID-19 Pandemic
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
Please Join Us for a Government Contracts Webinar: Coronavirus & Contracting: Preserving Your Rights and Navigating Evolving Obstacles of Delays, Changes, Stop Work, and Terminations, While Supporting Government Operations, During the COVID-19 Pandemic
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
Government Contracts Recovery Webinar
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
Join Crowell & Moring for our Webinar “Government Contracts Recovery: ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ About Requests for Equitable Adjustments and CDA Claims”
Join us for a webinar titled “Government Contracts Recovery: ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ About Requests for Equitable Adjustments and CDA Claims.” During the 60-minute webinar, a team of claims professionals from C&M’s Government Contractor Recovery Practice will address some FAQs that arise in the context of contractor claims / REAs, and solicit audience questions, as we
Annual Report Shines a Light on Success of Alternative Dispute Resolution at the ASBCA
The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals published its FY16 Report of Transactions and Proceedings, which provides statistics regarding the adjudication of appeals between contractors and the Army, Navy, Air Force, Corps of Engineers, DLA, DCMA, CIA, NASA, other Defense agencies, and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. This year’s report once again reflects
ASBCA Dismisses Army’s $100 Million Cost Disallowance for Failure to State a Plausible Claim
In Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems, Inc. (ASBCA Dec. 20, 2016), a case involving a $100 million breach of contract claim stemming from purportedly unallowable direct subcontractor costs, the Board granted Lockheed Martin’s motion to dismiss the Army’s untenable claim “for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted,” concluding that the government
The Pen is Mightier: Typewritten Signature Invalidates CDA Claim
ABS Development Corp. (ASBCA Nov. 17, 2016) highlights the importance of providing a fully-compliant certification for CDA claims over $100,000—which includes, according to the Board, the requirement for contractors to provide an identifiable and verifiable handwritten signature or digital e-signature. As the contractor in ABS discovered, the Board considers “typewritten” signatures, regardless of font, to be insufficient.
In ABS, the Board dismissed for lack of jurisdiction certain contractor claims that had been “certified” by means of typewritten names (in signature-font) because a typewritten name “cannot be authenticated, and, therefore, is not a signature.” The Board made clear that the CDA’s purpose is to bind contractors by means of a signed certificate that “cannot be easily disavowed by the purported author.” The Board explained that a signature “is a discrete, verifiable symbol that is sufficiently distinguishable to authenticate that the certification was issued with the purported author’s knowledge and consent or to establish his intent to certify.” Because anyone could type another person’s name on a signature block, the purported author could
disavow the certification and the signature would be nearly impossible to authenticate.Continue Reading The Pen is Mightier: Typewritten Signature Invalidates CDA Claim
No Money, No Problem: Court Finds Certification Merely Defective on Pass-Through Claim, and Dings Severin Argument
In M.K. Ferguson Co. v. U.S. (Apr. 14, 2016), a case involving a pass-through claim compelled by the prime’s bankruptcy judge, the CFC denied the government’s motion to dismiss and held that the prime’s initial pass-through certification – which stated only that the prime was “authorized to certify the claim” – was not a
No Double-Dipping: Board Lacks Jurisdiction Over New Theories Asserted in Government’s Amended Answer
In AeroVironment, Inc. (Mar. 30, 2016), following an apparent settlement of the government’s cost disallowance claim, the ASBCA denied the government’s request to amend its answer (in order to “clarify” entitlement to additional quantum) because the proposed amendments constituted new “claims” that required new final decisions. Acknowledging that parties may ordinarily revise quantum without