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 | 3 min read | 07.23.26
It is well established that “[c]ompetitive prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest.” Yet, for decades, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has tempered this requirement with two critical corollaries: protesters need only demonstrate a “reasonable possibility” that they were prejudiced by an agency’s actions, and GAO “will resolve doubts regarding prejudice in favor of the protester.” These principles have been consistent features of GAO’s bid protest jurisprudence for more than 30 years. See, e.g., United Int’l Eng'g, Inc., B-245448, Jan. 29, 1992, 71 CPD ¶ 177.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26
Second Circuit Affirms Preliminary Injunction Against Nielsen in Constructive Tying Case
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Ghost Advertising: Compliance Takeaways From the Gymshark Influencer Class Action
