Too Late: Another Government Claim Barred by CDA Statute of Limitations
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.09.14
In Laguna Constr. (May 29, 2014), the ASBCA barred the government's claim under the CDA statute of limitations when DCAA had issued a report, more than six years prior, finding that the contractor's subcontract management system was "inadequate" and resulted in "a significant risk . . . relative to allocability, allowability, and reasonableness of subcontract costs billed to the U.S. Government." Even though that report did not identify any specific government claim, the Board found that the government knew or should have known of the basis for its specific claim "no later than" the date that DCAA provided the report to the ACO with its general criticisms, emphasizing that the "events fixing liability should have been known when they occurred unless they can be reasonably found to have been either concealed or 'inherently unknowable' at that time," the latest in a string of decisions interpreting the CDA statute of limitations as to government cost claims (discussed here, here, here, here, here, and here).
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.20.26
SCOTUS Holds IEEPA Tariffs Unlawful
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a pivotal ruling in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, negating the President’s ability to impose tariffs under IEEPA. The case stemmed from President Trump’s invocation of IEEPA to levy tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, China, and other countries, citing national emergencies. Challengers argued—and the Court agreed—that IEEPA does not delegate tariff authority to the President. The power to tariff is vested in Congress by the Constitution and cannot be delegated to the President absent express authority from Congress.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 02.20.26
Section 5949 Proposed Rule Puts the FAR Council's Chips on the Table
Client Alert | 5 min read | 02.20.26
Trump Administration Pursues MFN Pricing for Prescription Drugs
Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.19.26
Proposed NY Legislation May Mean Potential Criminal Charges for Unlicensed Crypto Firms

