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 | 2 min read | 05.29.26
California Assembly Passes AB 1776, Sending Major Antitrust Bill to the Senate
California’s COMPETE Act (AB 1776) narrowly passed the California State Assembly by three votes on Wednesday and now moves to the California State Senate. The bill — introduced in March by Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry — is modeled closely on draft legislation recommended by the California Law Revision Commission in September. AB 1776 would not only significantly expand potential liability for single-firm conduct and monopolization but, based on recent amendments, would also explicitly decouple California antitrust analysis from certain federal standards. Crowell & Moring is representing the California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber) in monitoring, analyzing, and responding to AB 1776.
Client Alert | 5 min read | 05.29.26
Clover Insurance v. HHS: S.D. of Georgia Holds 20 Star Ratings Measures Unlawful
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.29.26
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.28.26
