Board Rejects Claim Based on Certain Fiscal Law Violations
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.12.17
In Parsons Government Services, Inc. (ASBCA No. 60663, May 3, 2017), the Board dismissed Parsons’ $21 million claim because both contractual allegations turned on fiscal law provisions that did not entitle Parsons to relief. First, Parsons argued that the contract was void ab initio, entitling Parsons to quantum meruit, because “the government should have awarded the contract as a construction contract appropriating MILCON funds [pursuant to 10 U.S.C. §§ 2801 et seq.] instead of a supply and services contract using O&M funds.” Second, Parsons argued that the government “violated the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by depriving Parsons of its reasonable expectations” of the necessary Congressional oversight and more stringent terms consistent with a MILCON-funded contract….” The Board rejected both arguments under Federal Circuit precedent, finding that the statutory MILCON provision underlying Parsons’ claim did not provide a private right of action for contractors to sue because the primary intended beneficiary of the statute was the government.
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