Deal or No Deal? Board Reminds Contractors that Money “Awarded” in Final Decision May Evaporate If Appealed
Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.21.17
In BES Design/Build, LLC v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs (CBCA 5640), the Board denied BES’ motion “for the immediate release of funds ‘awarded’” in the CO’s final decision, finding that, once appealed, “[a] final decision…is not binding on the agency, because…that decision is reviewed de novo by the Board.” Specifically, following BES’ performance of additional work, BES claimed $168,847.06 and additional time. The CO found that BES was entitled to 16 additional days and $21,998.34. The CO drafted a modification consistent with such decision and interest due. BES, however, made additional “‘pen and ink’ changes to the modification,” which the CO declined to incorporate. Ultimately, BES refused to sign the modification and, instead, appealed the CO’s decision. Three months later, BES filed the motion for immediate release of the “awarded” funds, but neither the agency nor the Board is bound by the CO’s findings and offer of payment once appealed; the Board may award less, or more, than the offered amount.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25


