1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |CBCA Holds that Contractor is Out on a Limb Seeking Claim Preparation Costs, but Grants T4C Partial Victory

CBCA Holds that Contractor is Out on a Limb Seeking Claim Preparation Costs, but Grants T4C Partial Victory

Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.11.19

In Woolery Timber Management, Inc. v. Department of Agriculture (CBCA No. 6031), the contractor sought damages for the alleged partial termination of its contract and various other costs, including consulting fees related to the contractor’s preparation of its certified claim and extra time expended as a result of blocked access to a road. With respect to the alleged partial termination, the Board found that it was not, in fact, a termination at all because the parties failed to execute a draft bilateral modification that would have eliminated some work scope, and the contracting officer never unilaterally issued the modification. However, the Board noted that, earlier, the CO had partially terminated for convenience, but that the contractor failed to submit a termination settlement proposal within one year of that earlier termination. That failure was not fatal. The Board explained that because the earlier termination occurred under the commercial items termination for convenience clause (FAR 52.212-4), and not the FAR’s standard termination for convenience clause, there was no one-year time limit and, thus, Woolery still could “pursue a remedy for any increased costs resulting from the…convenience termination.” Regarding Woolery’s cost claims, the Board reiterated that, consistent with Bill Strong, Woolery could not recover its claim preparation costs. Lastly, the Board awarded Woolery half of its idle equipment damages resulting from a service road that was accidentally blocked — despite the fact that the solicitation did not warrant that Woolery could use the road (generally, this language is required to make an excusable delay compensable).

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 03.28.24

UK Government Seeks to Loosen Third Party Litigation Funding Regulation

On 19 March 2024, the Government followed through on a promise from the Ministry of Justice to introduce draft legislation to reverse the effect of  R (on the application of PACCAR Inc & Ors) v Competition Appeal Tribunal & Ors [2023] UKSC 28.  The effect of this ruling was discussed in our prior alert and follow on commentary discussing its effect on group competition litigation and initial government reform proposals. Should the bill pass, agreements to provide third party funding to litigation or advocacy services in England will no longer be required to comply with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (“DBA Regulations”) to be enforceable....