Federal Circuit Drops Bombshells on CDA Statute of Limitations and CAS "Materiality" Test
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 12.11.14
In Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. U.S., the Federal Circuit upended the prevailing case law on the CDA statute of limitations by holding that the six-year SOL for filing CDA claims is "not jurisdictional" and "need not be addressed before deciding the merits." In denying the merits of the government's $80 million CAS 418 claim, the Federal Circuit also held that the cost of Sikorsky's management and supervision was "not a material amount of the total pool costs" because managers/supervisors comprised only 7 to 14 percent of the pertinent workforce, clarifying that materiality requires "a significant amount."
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26
It is well established that “[c]ompetitive prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest.” Yet, for decades, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has tempered this requirement with two critical corollaries: protesters need only demonstrate a “reasonable possibility” that they were prejudiced by an agency’s actions, and GAO “will resolve doubts regarding prejudice in favor of the protester.” These principles have been consistent features of GAO’s bid protest jurisprudence for more than 30 years. See, e.g., United Int’l Eng'g, Inc., B-245448, Jan. 29, 1992, 71 CPD ¶ 177.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Ghost Advertising: Compliance Takeaways From the Gymshark Influencer Class Action
Client Alert | 5 min read | 07.21.26
