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 | 01.05.26
Another Court Rules CASA Does Not Limit Universal Relief Available Under the APA
In Trump v. CASA, the Supreme Court significantly constrained the equitable authority of federal district courts to grant universal or nationwide injunctive relief, clarifying that, with specific exceptions, a federal court’s power to grant relief is limited to the parties before it. When it was issued, many bemoaned CASA’s implications for preventing government overreach.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 01.05.26
Consideration of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration Terms of Reference
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.31.25
Raising the Bar: New York Expands Consumer Protection Law with FAIR Business Practices Act
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.30.25
