Limitation of Funds Clause Puts Bite in Termination Recovery
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 12.30.13
In The Boeing Co. (Dec. 3, 2013), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals served a reminder of the risks Limitation of Funds (LOF) clauses pose for contractors, who normally must assure that funding on their contracts will be adequate not only for work underway but also for recovery of prime and subcontract costs in the event of a termination for convenience. The Board refused to allow recovery of costs incurred in excess of the funded amounts, holding that, if the contractor incurred costs in excess of the allotted funding, "it was a volunteer and did so for its own account."
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 10.30.26
Recent sustain decisions by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC and Reliance Test & Technology send a clear message: when an agency tries to fix a Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) violation by committing a second one, the cure can be just as fatal as the disease. The cases involved the U.S. Air Force’s $1.8 billion procurement for O&M services at Elgin Air Force Base. During discussions, the Air Force inadvertently released a pricing overview slide with all offerors’ bottom-line evaluated costs to Reliance Test & Technology, which immediately notified the agency of the error. In response, the Air Force decided to level the playing field by providing the same information to all the other offerors in the procurement, stating, “[o]fferors may consider this disclosure in their [final proposal revision].”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.29.26
What University Licensors Should Learn From TexasLDPC v. Broadcom
Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.28.26
Debriefing to Dead Briefing: How to Avoid Dismissal by Identifying “Required” Debriefings
