July 1, 2013
The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”) recently held a contract void ab initio for fraud in the inducement where the contractor fraudulently misrepresented its relationship with a proposed subcontractor holding certifications critical to the contractor’s eligibility for award. Servicios y Obras Isetan S.L., ASBCA No. 57584 (April 5, 2013).
The case involved a firm…
June 14, 2013
While it failed to fully resolve the matter at hand, the recent decision in CAE USA, Inc., ASBCA No. 58006 (May 23, 2013), promises a future answer to the question as to whether a Contracting Officer must supply not only the predecessor contractor’s collective bargaining agreement (CBA), but also full information as to the application and accrual of wages and fringe benefits.
The case involved an…
May 10, 2013
When faced with a $95,115 Contract Disputes Act certified claim for improper cancellation of a purchase order for printed circuit cards, the United States Government didn’t just defend the claim – it went on the offensive by filing a False Claims Act (FCA) claim against the contractor. In Ulysses, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-436C (Fed. Cl. April 30, 2013), the Court of Federal Claims…
May 6, 2013
Last Fall, we reported on a case in which the ASBCA adopted the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of FAR 52-217-8 and FAR 52.217-9 and the difference between the two clauses. That article stressed the importance of knowing which clause is implicated by the contract extensions at issue and understanding the clauses’ separate purposes. The recent case of Glasgow Investigative Solutions,…
April 24, 2013
Sometimes one federal agency is responsible for claims related to price increases and the actions of another federal agency. One such situation is found in Raytheon Missile Systems Company, ASBCA No. 57594 (March 18, 2013), where the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals recently sustained an appeal involving a nearly two-fold price increase in the cost of JP-10 fuel.
Raytheon Missile…
April 15, 2013
This is a situation only a government contracts law geek could love. Where does an aggrieved contractor file a claim for improper termination and associated damages and fees involving supplies/services offered on the General Services Administration Supply Schedule? A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit attempted to answer this pithy legal issue in Sharp Electronics…
April 5, 2013
When a claim for equitable adjustment comes down to the qualitative and cost differences between clear and delustered laminate film, sometimes you just have to wonder whether the contractor’s ability to read the plain language of her contract was obscured by the shiny laminate she used. The recent case of Christine Baldridge, v. Government Printing Office, No. 2012-6001 (Fed. Cir. March…
April 1, 2013
A recent Board of Contract Appeals case demonstrates that regardless of how solid a contractor’s past history may be, failure to perform is failure to perform. In Payne Enterprises v. Dept. of Agriculture, CBCA No. 2899 (Mar. 19, 2013), the Board granted the government’s motion for summary relief and denied the appeal of Payne Enterprises, a lumber wholesaler from Kane, Pennsylvania. …
March 28, 2013
The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) recently dismissed a $17 million government claim as untimely in Raytheon Missile Systems, ASBCA No. 58011 (Jan. 28, 2013). This is yet another case in a string of recent decisions over the last year (reported here) in which the government’s claim was barred by the 6-year statute of limitations under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA). With…
March 25, 2013
In responding to contractor claims, the government often raises as a defense the contractor’s failure to first bring a particular issue or claim before the contracting officer. So it was quite refreshing when, in the recent case of Appeal of Lockheed Martin Services, Inc., ASBCA No. 58028 (Feb. 20, 2013), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeal (ASBCA) denied the government’s motion…
March 19, 2013
The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) recently ruled in favor of the high bidder at a GSA auction for a lemon of a barge on the grounds that GSA failed to disclose issues with the barge and breached its implied duty of cooperation. See Expediters Worldwide USA, Inc. v. GSA, CBCA Nos. 2748, 3237 (Feb. 28, 2013).
The appellant was the high bidder for a large barge that had been used…
March 12, 2013
Under the Contract Disputes Act, what is necessary to make a “claim”? The statute has three simple requirements, but the U.S. Court of Federal Claims tried to add additional requirements. In Northrop Grumman Computing Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. 2011-5124 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 19, 2013), the Federal Circuit made it clear that there are only three requirements for stating a claim,…
July 1, 2013
The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”) recently held a contract void ab initio for fraud in the inducement where the contractor fraudulently misrepresented its relationship with a proposed subcontractor holding certifications critical to the contractor’s eligibility for award. Servicios y Obras Isetan S.L., ASBCA No. 57584 (April 5, 2013).
The case involved a firm…
June 14, 2013
While it failed to fully resolve the matter at hand, the recent decision in CAE USA, Inc., ASBCA No. 58006 (May 23, 2013), promises a future answer to the question as to whether a Contracting Officer must supply not only the predecessor contractor’s collective bargaining agreement (CBA), but also full information as to the application and accrual of wages and fringe benefits.
The case involved an…
May 10, 2013
When faced with a $95,115 Contract Disputes Act certified claim for improper cancellation of a purchase order for printed circuit cards, the United States Government didn’t just defend the claim – it went on the offensive by filing a False Claims Act (FCA) claim against the contractor. In Ulysses, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-436C (Fed. Cl. April 30, 2013), the Court of Federal Claims…
May 6, 2013
Last Fall, we reported on a case in which the ASBCA adopted the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of FAR 52-217-8 and FAR 52.217-9 and the difference between the two clauses. That article stressed the importance of knowing which clause is implicated by the contract extensions at issue and understanding the clauses’ separate purposes. The recent case of Glasgow Investigative Solutions,…
April 24, 2013
Sometimes one federal agency is responsible for claims related to price increases and the actions of another federal agency. One such situation is found in Raytheon Missile Systems Company, ASBCA No. 57594 (March 18, 2013), where the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals recently sustained an appeal involving a nearly two-fold price increase in the cost of JP-10 fuel.
Raytheon Missile…
April 15, 2013
This is a situation only a government contracts law geek could love. Where does an aggrieved contractor file a claim for improper termination and associated damages and fees involving supplies/services offered on the General Services Administration Supply Schedule? A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit attempted to answer this pithy legal issue in Sharp Electronics…
April 5, 2013
When a claim for equitable adjustment comes down to the qualitative and cost differences between clear and delustered laminate film, sometimes you just have to wonder whether the contractor’s ability to read the plain language of her contract was obscured by the shiny laminate she used. The recent case of Christine Baldridge, v. Government Printing Office, No. 2012-6001 (Fed. Cir. March…
April 1, 2013
A recent Board of Contract Appeals case demonstrates that regardless of how solid a contractor’s past history may be, failure to perform is failure to perform. In Payne Enterprises v. Dept. of Agriculture, CBCA No. 2899 (Mar. 19, 2013), the Board granted the government’s motion for summary relief and denied the appeal of Payne Enterprises, a lumber wholesaler from Kane, Pennsylvania. …
March 28, 2013
The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) recently dismissed a $17 million government claim as untimely in Raytheon Missile Systems, ASBCA No. 58011 (Jan. 28, 2013). This is yet another case in a string of recent decisions over the last year (reported here) in which the government’s claim was barred by the 6-year statute of limitations under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA). With…
March 25, 2013
In responding to contractor claims, the government often raises as a defense the contractor’s failure to first bring a particular issue or claim before the contracting officer. So it was quite refreshing when, in the recent case of Appeal of Lockheed Martin Services, Inc., ASBCA No. 58028 (Feb. 20, 2013), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeal (ASBCA) denied the government’s motion…
March 19, 2013
The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) recently ruled in favor of the high bidder at a GSA auction for a lemon of a barge on the grounds that GSA failed to disclose issues with the barge and breached its implied duty of cooperation. See Expediters Worldwide USA, Inc. v. GSA, CBCA Nos. 2748, 3237 (Feb. 28, 2013).
The appellant was the high bidder for a large barge that had been used…
March 12, 2013
Under the Contract Disputes Act, what is necessary to make a “claim”? The statute has three simple requirements, but the U.S. Court of Federal Claims tried to add additional requirements. In Northrop Grumman Computing Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. 2011-5124 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 19, 2013), the Federal Circuit made it clear that there are only three requirements for stating a claim,…
