ASBCA Rules that Navy’s Desires Are Not an Option
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.13.19
In Fluor Federal Solutions (Jan. 10, 2019), the ASBCA agreed with Fluor that the Navy erroneously modified the terms of a contract option and granted summary judgment to Fluor. The Navy argued that it had the right to make the modification, which reduced the amount it paid for services Fluor provided at four military bases for the option year. The Board concluded the modification could only be made with proper documentation of the rationale behind the change. As the Navy failed to provide such documentation, the Board held that the modification to exercise the option was “unenforceable” (as opposed to a “defective” option). The ASBCA awarded Fluor $14.8 million, the difference between Fluor’s estimate of its costs to perform the modification (plus reasonable profit) and the amount the Navy awarded for the contact option. Fluor’s estimate was based on its actual costs to perform the contract in the prior year.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 09.18.25
On September 9, 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (HHS) issued a news release announcing an “aggressive[]” “crackdown” on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising. This release came on the heels of a Presidential Memorandum President Trump issued the same day directing HHS to “ensure transparency and accuracy in direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertisements,” and the FDA to “take action to enforce legal requirements that advertisements for prescription drugs be truthful and not misleading.”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.17.25
Client Alert | 4 min read | 09.17.25
Client Alert | 5 min read | 09.16.25
Bucking the Odds: Why Technology Companies Should Embrace Software Patents Today
