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 | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Design patents offer protection for the ornamental appearance of a product, focusing on aspects like its shape and surface decoration, as opposed to the functional aspects protected by utility patents. The scope of a design patent is defined by the drawings and any descriptive language within the patent itself. Recent decisions by the Federal Circuit emphasize the need for clarity in the prosecution history of a design patent in order to preserve desired scope to preserve intentional narrowing (and to avoid unintentional sacrifice of desired claim scope).
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
Client Alert | 4 min read | 11.18.25
DOJ Announces Major Enforcement Actions Targeting North Korean Remote IT Worker Schemes


