Government Contracts MonitorClaims and DisputesDon’t Bank on Option Exercise – You May Be Very DisappointedJuly 3, 2014 A recent decision by the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals reminds us how most options work in government contracts. In JRS Management, CBCA No. 3288, May 28, 2014, the Board denied a contractor’s claim that by failing to exercise the renewal option, the agency acted in bad faith and committed an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion, stating: “Regarding the… A Signature Can Be Very ValuableMay 22, 2014 An expensive lesson was recently learned by the contractor in Tokyo Company, ASBCA No. 59059 (April 23, 2014). Tokyo submitted a $920,602 claim with a certification that did not include a physical signature. The certification included only the company's stamp and the typed name of its general manager. Because Tokyo failed to properly sign or execute its claim… Captain America Would Be Proud: The Government Is Contractually Responsible For CERLA Costs Related To WWII Aviation Fuel ProductionMay 12, 2014 In a case reminiscent of some of themes raised in the recent Captain America movie franchise, a World War II problem comes to life in the Twenty-First Century and the U.S. Government is contractually obligated to pay to fix it in Shell Oil Company, et al., v. United States, No. 2013-5051 (Fed. Cir. April 28, 2014). Shortly after the Pearl Harbor attack, the U.S. Government… Contractors Assume The Risks That They Properly Priced A Firm Fixed Price ContractApril 25, 2014 It is a simple rule of government contracting: the contractor assumes the upside and downside risk involved in its firm fixed price contract pricing, unless very limited exceptions apply. The Federal Circuit recently provided another example to support this general rule in Lakeshore Engineering Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 2013-5094 (Fed. Cir. April 11,… Short Takes: DOD Proposes to Update the ASBCA’s RulesMarch 25, 2014 DOD has issued a new Proposed Rule updating the Rules of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”), in their entirety, and is inviting comments on or before April 29, 2014. The proposed changes update, revise and reorder the Board’s Rules, and attempt to resolve ambiguities and remove contradictions. Among other things, the proposed rule provides updated… Be Prepared: Fully Document All Potentially Allowable CostsFebruary 18, 2014 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-5030 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 3, 2014), recently affirmed a lower court decision denying Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. (“KBR”) more than $6 million in costs it incurred while providing food services to the United States Army in Iraq. The reason for the… Perseverance and Litigation Prompt Government to Convert Default Termination to Termination for ConvenienceDecember 10, 2013 Sometimes, if you push hard enough and long enough, you can get a default termination converted to a termination for convenience. That is what happened in White Buffalo Construction, Inc. v. United States, No. 2012-5045 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2013). White Buffalo Construction, Inc. (“White Buffalo”) contracted with the Federal Highway Administration (“FHA”) to repair damaged roads in the… ASBCA Finds 176 Days an Unreasonable Amount of Time for the CO to Issue a Final DecisionNovember 25, 2013 A recent Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”) case reminds us that you may not necessarily need a Contracting Officer’s (“CO’s”) final decision on your claim before you file an appeal. In Metag Insaat Ticaret A.S., ASBCA No. 58616 (Nov. 4, 2013), the CO issued the contractor a final performance evaluation with a rating of “marginal” or “unsatisfactory.”… Royalty-in-Kind Contracts With The Department of the Interior Can Be Enforceable Federal ContractsOctober 7, 2013 Companies that extract minerals and other natural resources from federal land typically pay royalties to the U.S. Department of the Interior (“Interior”). Under standard federal oil and gas leases, the government may enter into Royalty-In-Kind (“RIK”) contracts providing that the government receives a designated proportion of the minerals extracted instead of a cash payment by the company… Note to Self: Make Sure You Actually Have a Contract Before You File a ClaimSeptember 30, 2013 A recent Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) case serves as a reminder of the central role that contract performance can play in determining – or undermining – entitlement under a contractor’s claim. It also presents a laundry list of ill-advised actions that contractors should avoid. TTF, L.L.C., ASBCA Nos. 58495, 58516 (Sept. 3, 2013), involved a total HUBZone set-aside for… When Your Government Contract Is Based On Fraud, Don’t Bother Trying To Submit A ClaimSeptember 16, 2013 Every once in a while you come across a case so absurd, that you just have to ask “what were they thinking?” Appeal of Dongbuk R&U Engineering Co., Ltd., ASBCA No. 58300 (Aug. 13, 2013) is one of those cases. One who fraudulently induces the government to enter into a contract should have no expectation of receiving payment on that contract. The U.S. Army Contracting Command Korea… Wrong FAR Clause In Utilities Contract Is Just Water Under The BridgeSeptember 4, 2013 A recent Court of Federal Claims case reminds us that the clauses included in your contract might not actually be the terms governing your arrangement with the Government. And as the Government learned the hard way in Bay County, FL v. United States, No. 11-157C (Fed. Cl. Aug. 14, 2013), this is may even be true when the Government is the party that chose the contract clauses. Bay County,… |
|
© 2024 Jackson Kelly PLLC. All Rights Reserved.