Photo of Peter J. EyrePhoto of M.Yuan Zhou

This week’s episode covers annual reports from GAO and the ASBCA, a proposed rule regarding disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risk, and new requirement to refer any suspected instances of human trafficking to suspension and debarment officials, and is hosted by Peter Eyre and Yuan Zhou. Crowell & Moring’s “Fastest 5 Minutes”

Photo of Steve McBradyPhoto of Skye MathiesonPhoto of Michelle ColemanPhoto of John NakonecznyPhoto of Amanda McDowell

On November 1, 2022, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) published its FY 2022 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 Agency

Photo of Nicole Owren-WiestPhoto of Erin RankinPhoto of Catherine Shames

In Doubleshot, Inc., ASBCA No. 61691 (July 19, 2022), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”) granted the contractor’s motion for partial summary judgment, denying the Government’s claim for unallowable costs to the extent that it was based on missing or unsigned employee time cards.  The ASBCA held that the contractor was not required to maintain time card records to support the allowability of labor charges beyond the retention period specified in the contractor’s cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts (including applicable time extensions). 

The contracts incorporated both the Audit and Records – Negotiation clause (FAR 52.215-2) and the Allowable Cost and Payment clause (FAR 52.216-7), which grant the Government the right to examine the contractor’s records reflecting all claimed costs and reduce payments for amounts that are unallowable.  Following the contractor’s delayed submission of two final indirect cost rate proposals, the Defense Contract Audit Agency (“DCAA”) did not begin auditing the proposals until eight months after the contractual obligation to maintain records had expired.  DCAA then questioned the contractor’s labor costs for which there was no time card support, even though the contractor was able to demonstrate that it paid its employees.  The Government’s claim and the contractor’s appeal followed. 

Continue Reading Too Late: Government’s Failure to Timely Audit Did Not Extend the Contractor’s Document Retention Obligations

Photo of Steve McBradyPhoto of J. Chris HailePhoto of Skye MathiesonPhoto of Michelle ColemanPhoto of John Nakoneczny

In Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, ASBCA No. 62209, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“Board”) denied the Air Force’s motion for summary judgment, which had argued that the “measured mile” approach to calculating disruption was legally untenable.  In its decision, the Board noted that it has “accepted the measured mile approach as an

Photo of Steve McBradyPhoto of Nicole Owren-WiestPhoto of Skye MathiesonPhoto of Erin RankinPhoto of Catherine Shames

In Ology Bioservices, Inc., ASBCA No. 62633 (May 20, 2021), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (the Board) held that the Government could not assess a penalty on the contractor’s fiscal year (FY) 2013 compensation costs for being expressly unallowable when the Government delayed publishing the compensation cap for FY 2013 by more

Photo of Steve McBradyPhoto of Nicole Owren-WiestPhoto of Charles BaekPhoto of Michelle ColemanPhoto of John NakonecznyPhoto of Catherine Shames

In URS Federal Services, Inc., ASBCA No. 62475 (March 23, 2021), the Board dismissed a contractor’s three-count complaint for lack of jurisdiction on one count and for failure to state a claim on the other two.  The Board first addressed Count III, which alleged that the Government had breached the implied duty of

Photo of Steve McBradyPhoto of Brian Tully McLaughlinPhoto of Lyndsay GortonPhoto of Catherine Shames

In GSC Constr., Inc., ASBCA No. 62530 (Mar. 1, 2021), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (the Board) denied the Government’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.  The contractor submitted a certified claim to the contracting officer (CO) that included costs associated with a change order, and then subsequently filed an appeal

Photo of Nicole Owren-WiestPhoto of Skye MathiesonPhoto of Alexandra Barbee-GarrettPhoto of Catherine Shames

In L3 Technologies, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 61811, et al. (Mar. 1, 2021), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) granted the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal, over the contractor’s objection, following the Contracting Officer’s (CO) unequivocal withdrawal of its cost disallowance claims. The contractor argued that its case was not moot despite

Photo of Steve McBradyPhoto of Nicole Owren-WiestPhoto of Skye MathiesonPhoto of Michelle ColemanPhoto of Charles Baek

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals published its FY2020 Report of Transactions and Proceedings, which provides statistics regarding the adjudication of appeals between contractors and the Army, Navy, Air Force, Corps of Engineers, CIA, NASA, DLA, DCMA, and other Defense agencies, Non-Appropriated Fund Instrumentalities, and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. According to

Photo of Nicole Owren-WiestPhoto of Skye MathiesonPhoto of Michelle ColemanPhoto of Catherine Shames

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