August 2, 2012
A recent food service industry decision from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals provides some guidance regarding how a Contracting Officer should deal with potential mistakes in the bid process.
In Red Gold, Inc. v. Dep’t of Agriculture, CBCA 2639 (July 6, 2012), the Board held that a unilateral mistake by the contractor was excusable and awarded $253,608. In connection with a…
July 26, 2012
As previously reported here, the Court of Federal Claims and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals have held that the 6-year statute of limitations for bringing a claim applies equally to both the Government and its contractors. In Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, Nos. 09-844C & 10-741C (Fed. Cl. July 18, 2012), the Court, once again, applied the Contract Disputes Act (CDA)…
April 26, 2012
In two recent decisions – The Boeing Company, ASBCA No. 57490 (Jan. 6, 2012) and Raytheon Co. v. United States, No. 09-306C (Fed. Cl. Apr. 2, 2012) –contractors successfully argued that the Government’s claims were barred by the 6-year statute of limitations under the Contracts Disputes Act (CDA). The CDA provides that “each claim by the Federal Government against a contractor relating to…
March 5, 2012
In Engage Learning, Inc. v. Salazar, No. 2011-1007 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 5, 2011), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified that when a contractor alleges the existence of an express or implied-in-fact contract with the government, that allegation is enough for a Board of Contract Appeals to have jurisdiction under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA). The Board should…
September 9, 2011
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently ruled on a variety of legal issues in Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. United States, Nos. 2010-5086, -5087 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 3, 2011) involving a Miller Act surety’s claims against the United States. The Federal Circuit’s ruling highlights (i) the need to comply with Contract Disputes Act requirements; (ii) the limited…
August 2, 2012
A recent food service industry decision from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals provides some guidance regarding how a Contracting Officer should deal with potential mistakes in the bid process.
In Red Gold, Inc. v. Dep’t of Agriculture, CBCA 2639 (July 6, 2012), the Board held that a unilateral mistake by the contractor was excusable and awarded $253,608. In connection with a…
July 26, 2012
As previously reported here, the Court of Federal Claims and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals have held that the 6-year statute of limitations for bringing a claim applies equally to both the Government and its contractors. In Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, Nos. 09-844C & 10-741C (Fed. Cl. July 18, 2012), the Court, once again, applied the Contract Disputes Act (CDA)…
April 26, 2012
In two recent decisions – The Boeing Company, ASBCA No. 57490 (Jan. 6, 2012) and Raytheon Co. v. United States, No. 09-306C (Fed. Cl. Apr. 2, 2012) –contractors successfully argued that the Government’s claims were barred by the 6-year statute of limitations under the Contracts Disputes Act (CDA). The CDA provides that “each claim by the Federal Government against a contractor relating to…
March 5, 2012
In Engage Learning, Inc. v. Salazar, No. 2011-1007 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 5, 2011), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified that when a contractor alleges the existence of an express or implied-in-fact contract with the government, that allegation is enough for a Board of Contract Appeals to have jurisdiction under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA). The Board should…
September 9, 2011
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently ruled on a variety of legal issues in Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. United States, Nos. 2010-5086, -5087 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 3, 2011) involving a Miller Act surety’s claims against the United States. The Federal Circuit’s ruling highlights (i) the need to comply with Contract Disputes Act requirements; (ii) the limited…
