Government Contracts MonitorClaims and DisputesIn a Rare Move, ASBCA Holds Contract Void Ab Initio Based Upon Fraudulent MisrepresentationJuly 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… Stay Tuned: We May Soon Know More about a Contracting Officer’s Duty to Provide CBA Information to Offerors under the Service Contract ActJune 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… A Quote Is Not a Claim, but Be Ready for More Government CounterclaimsMay 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… ASBCA Provides Additional Guidance on Contract Extensions under FAR 52.217-8May 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,… NAVAIR Responsible for DESC Price Increases Unrelated to Market FluctuationsApril 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… Claims Involving GSA Schedule Items: Do You Present The Claim To The GSA Contracting Officer Or The Ordering Agency Contracting Officer?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… Neither Glossy Nor Delustered Film Can Obscure The Plain Language Of A Government ContractApril 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… Timber! A Government Contractor Asks for Mercy and Gets NoneApril 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. … Father Time vs. Uncle Sam: Another Government Claim Dismissed as UntimelyMarch 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… ASBCA Makes Government Play by Same Rules as ContractorsMarch 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… CBCA Sides with GSA Auction Bidder Because Government Breached Its “Duty of Cooperation”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… What Is A Claim?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,… |
|
© 2024 Jackson Kelly PLLC. All Rights Reserved.