Federal Circuit Affirms Contractor’s $113 Million Award from ASBCA
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.31.16
In another decision in the long-running saga that has bounced between the ASBCA and the courts for twelve years concerning a non-appropriated fund contract under which SUFI installed telephones in Air Force lodgings at bases in Germany (and has been represented by Crowell & Moring), the Federal Circuit in SUFI Network Servs., Inc. v. U.S. (Mar. 29, 2016) rejected DOJ’s “mandate compliance” challenge to the ASBCA’s opinions on remand awarding SUFI more than $113 million in additional damages for multiple breaches of contract committed by the Air Force. The court held that DOJ has no independent right to complain of the Board’s awards accepted by the contractor and, nevertheless, found meritless DOJ’s assertions that the Board had failed to heed the court’s directives, instead affirming the CFC’s dismissal of DOJ’s challenge and its order that DOJ instruct the Air Force to pay SUFI’s award.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
