Do Not Pass Go: Board Dismisses Claim on Jurisdictional Grounds
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.20.17
In Elham Ahmadi Construction Company (ASBCA No. 61031), the Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider a contractor’s appeal arising from a termination for default and the contractor’s related claim to recover payment for work that was performed and accepted by the Government prior to the termination. First, the Board held that while “a termination for default is both a government claim and contracting officer’s final decision that can be directly appealed to the Board,” a contractor must appeal such termination within the statutorily-mandated 90 days. Because the contractor did not contest the termination until six years after the termination, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider the termination’s propriety. Second, the Board concluded that the contractor’s claim – which requested “about $71500 Dollars” – did not constitute a claim because it lacked the required sum certain. The Board explained that qualifiers such as “about” or “at least” make a sum uncertain and deprive the Board of jurisdiction, a reminder to contractors to observe the jurisdictional prerequisites in the Contract Disputes Act and the FAR, or risk forfeiting otherwise viable claims.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
