1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Boards' CDA Jurisdiction Does Not Extend To Third-Party Beneficiaries

Boards' CDA Jurisdiction Does Not Extend To Third-Party Beneficiaries

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 06.30.09

Reversing the ASBCA decision, 08-1 BCA ¶ 33,793 (2008), the Federal Circuit holds in Winter v. FloorPro, Inc. (June 26, 2009), that the ASBCA does not have jurisdiction to hear claims brought by third-party beneficiaries, because they are not "contractors" under the Contract Disputes Act. The Federal Circuit distinguishes its prior holding that the Court of Federal Claims does have jurisdiction to hear claims by third-party beneficiaries, observing that jurisdiction granted to the CFC under the Tucker Act is ";broader than the Board's jurisdiction under the CDA."

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.27.26

WARNING: California’s Listing of Microplastics as a Candidate Chemical May Result in Unexpected, and Imminent, Compliance Obligations Under AB 1200 (California Safer Food Packaging and Cookware Act)

On June 18, 2026, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) added microplastics to the list of Candidate Chemicals maintained under the state’s Safer Consumer Products (SCP) regulations.  The listing of microplastics, which becomes effective on October 1, 2026, is the first step in the SCP regulatory process, which could lead to restrictions on products that contain or release microplastics. ...