1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |ASBCA Rules that Navy’s Desires Are Not an Option

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 | 02.11.26

Clicking All the Right Boxes: FTC Moves to Revive “Click-to-Cancel” Rule Following Eighth Circuit Vacatur

On July 8, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Rule Concerning Subscriptions and Other Negative Option Plans, commonly known as the “Click-to-Cancel” rule. As detailed in a previous client alert, the rule was intended to regulate negative option plans[1]— such as subscriptions and automatic renewals — by imposing stringent requirements on businesses, including streamlined cancellation processes and enhanced disclosure obligations. The Eighth Circuit vacated the Click-to-Cancel rule because it found that the FTC had failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements. As a result, the rule is no longer in effect, and businesses are not currently subject to its mandates....

View All Insights