1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Deal or No Deal? Board Reminds Contractors that Money “Awarded” in Final Decision May Evaporate If Appealed

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.

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25

District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products

On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market....