ASBCA Holds that Transmission Emails are "Part of the Same Transaction" as Mods for Plain Meaning Purposes
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.24.19
Can contractors reserve rights in a transmission email while executing a contract modification that is silent on such reservation? The ASBCA recently affirmed again that yes, contractors can. In NMS Management, Inc., ASBCA No. 61519 (Apr. 11, 2019), a dispute over the “improper attempt at a partial exercise” of an option period, the ASBCA rejected the Government’s argument that NMS was strictly bound by the terms of a signed bilateral modification – viewed in isolation – because NMS’s accompanying transmission email stated that it was signing under protest. The ASBCA clarified the plain meaning rule by citing precedent that the “interpretation of a contract as a whole requires consideration of all documents that are part of the same transaction together.” The Board held that “the [transmission] email dispels any notion that Modification No. P00011 is the only writing to consider when evaluating the legal consequences of the modification.”
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
