by Richard D. Lieberman, Consultant | May 29, 2024 | Claims and Remedies
A contractor cannot assert government caused delays in a subsequent default termination, unless it has filed a claim for a time extension. Windamir Dev., Inc., ASBCA No. 63461, Dec. 21, 2023. Windamir sought more than $1 million in alleged damages in its challenge of...
by Richard D. Lieberman, Consultant | May 22, 2024 | Bids & Proposals
A recent case at the Federal Circuit discussed the statutory and regulatory requirements for bundling, in the context of a bid protest that the Navy had improperly bundled. BH Aircraft Co, Inc. v. United States, GE Company, DBA GE Edison Works (“GE”), Fed. Cir. No....
by Richard D. Lieberman, Consultant | May 15, 2024 | Claims and Remedies
The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (the “Board”) reminded the government that if it failed to raise jurisdictional issues (namely a sum certain requirement that should have been in the claim) before a hearing on the merits, it forfeited its right to... by Richard D. Lieberman, Consultant | Apr 4, 2024 | Contract Disputes Act/Disputes/Courts/Boards of Contract Appeals
In a recent appeal of an Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) termination for default, the Armed Services Board (“ASBCA” or “Board”) denied the Corps’ motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or, in the alternative,... by Richard D. Lieberman, Consultant | Mar 28, 2024 | Claims and Remedies, Contract Disputes Act/Disputes/Courts/Boards of Contract Appeals
The Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”), 41 USC §§ 7101-7109, requires both a claim and a contracting officer’s (“CO”) decision on a claim prior to making an appeal to a Board of Contract Appeals. FAR 2.101 defines a claim as “a written demand or written assertion by one...