Contracting Officer's Final Decision Not Afforded RES Judicata Status
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 05.10.04
In Roxco, Ltd. v. United States (Mar. 29, 2004), the COFC, among other things, rejected the Air Force's argument that Roxco's equitable adjustment claims, which were submitted more than a year after the Contracting Officer's default termination decision, should be barred through the application of res judicata, even if, as the Air Force asserted, those claims could have been raised as defenses to the default termination. The COFC reasoned that an extension of res judicata to contracting officers' final decisions would contradict the Contract Disputes Act's six-year statutory time limit for filing claims.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 09.15.26
GAO Indicates Reasonable Conflict of Interest Investigation Must Include Inquiry of Involved Firm
The U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) recent decision in Viderity Inc.—Costs, B-424422.5, Sept. 1, 2026, offers useful insight into what constitutes a legally sufficient conflict of interest investigation. The decision arose in an unusual procedural posture: Viderity initially protested, alleging that an agency evaluator had a personal conflict of interest. After the agency took corrective action, Viderity filed a cost entitlement claim requesting that GAO direct the agency to reimburse Viderity’s protest costs. In evaluating that claim, GAO assessed whether Viderity’s underlying protest ground was “clearly meritorious.”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.15.26
Client Alert | 7 min read | 09.14.26
AI in Life Sciences: Ten Legal Considerations and Risks of AI Use in Drug Discovery and Development
Client Alert | 6 min read | 09.14.26
Mental Health Parity Bulletin Restates Best Practices for Evaluating Compliance
