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 | 3 min read | 11.13.26
Massachusetts Trade Secret Preliminary Injunctions: Prove the Harm, Tailor the Relief
A strong trade secret claim is not a substitute for proof of irreparable harm. In Daikin Applied Americas Inc. v. Russo, No. SJC-13881 (Mass. Oct. 14, 2026), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that likely success on a misappropriation claim does not create a presumption of irreparable harm. The court grounded its ruling in both the Massachusetts Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the traditional equitable principles the statute incorporates. It required a case-specific showing that the requested relief would prevent harm that a final judgment could not adequately remedy.
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.12.26
SBA Announces Doubling Veteran Contracting Target to 10% for FY 2027, but Questions Remain
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.12.26
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.11.26
President Trump Nominates Peter Feldman to Serve as CPSC Chairman and Commissioner
