Board Upholds Measured-Mile Methodology to Calculate Disruption
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.24.22
In Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, ASBCA No. 62209 (a C&M case), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“Board”) denied the Air Force’s motion for summary judgment, which had argued that the “measured mile” approach to calculating disruption was legally untenable. In its decision, the Board noted that it has “accepted the measured mile approach as an appropriate method of determining impact to productivity” referencing extended discussion in King Aerospace, Inc., ASBCA No. 60933, 19- 1 BCA ¶ 37,316. The Board also granted Lockheed Martin’s cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of release, holding that the express language of modifications signed by the parties indicated that Lockheed Martin did not release any portion of its claim. The recent decisions follow on the heels of two other Board decisions. In April 2022, the Board granted Lockheed Martin’s cross-motion for summary judgment on the Air Force’s statute of limitations defense because Lockheed Martin’s claim did not accrue before the events that fixed the government’s liability occurred (discussed here). In June 2021, in a case of first impression, the Board granted Lockheed Martin’s motion for summary judgment on the Air Force’s affirmative defense of laches, holding that laches is no longer applicable in CDA cases at the Board (discussed here).
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
