Claim Accrual and the Continuing Claims Doctrine: Board Has Jurisdiction Over Claim Comprised of Separate and Distinct Events that Fell within the CDA’s Six-Year Statute of Limitations Period
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.03.22
In Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, ASBCA No. 62209 (a C&M case), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) held that the contractor’s claim, seeking recovery for impacts of over-and-above repair work during contract performance, was timely filed under the Contract Disputes Act’s six-year statute of limitations—rejecting an Air Force Motion for Summary Judgment and granting cross-motions filed on behalf of Lockheed Martin. Recognizing that a contractor’s claim cannot accrue before the events that fix the liability of the government, the Board held Lockheed Martin’s claim did not have a single accrual date but, rather, multiple accrual dates based upon when the government approved each repair. The Board separately held that those government approvals represented “the type of single-topic . . . yet repeated and distinct events” making Lockheed Martin’s claims timely under the well-recognized “continuing claim doctrine.”
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 01.21.26
Atlantic Biologicals Opioid DPA: DOJ Continues Ramp Up of Criminal Corporate Healthcare Enforcement
On January 13, 2026, Miami-based pharmaceutical wholesaler Atlantic Biologicals Corporation entered into a two-year DPA, admitting to conspiracy to distribute and dispense controlled substances, including more than 14 million opioid doses to “pill mill” pharmacies in Texas at a markup. The DOJ and DEA underscored the company’s deliberate evasion of compliance checks and disregard for red flags signaling diversion.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 01.21.26
FedRAMP Proposes Updates to Authorization Process—Six New RFCs Released for Public Comment
Client Alert | 3 min read | 01.20.26
DoW Joins SBA’s Fight Against Alleged Pass-Through Fraud in the 8(a) Program
Client Alert | 3 min read | 01.20.26
Federal Government Challenges Minnesota Law Requiring Affirmative Action in State Government





