No Buyer's Remorse – ASBCA Orders Air Force to Pay for What It Got
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.09.15
In Honeywell Int'l, Inc. (Sept. 24, 2015), the ASBCA held that the Air Force must pay for two solar arrays that the contractor (represented by C&M) provided under an Energy Savings Performance Contract, even though the Board had earlier determined that certain of the contract's payment terms were "invalid." In finding the Air Force liable under an implied-in-fact contract theory, the Board rejected arguments that the Air Force had never intended to acquire the solar arrays and that the contracting officers had lacked authority to bind the government, explaining that the Air Force, simply by refusing to accept them, could not escape liability for the arrays that were "supplied … as designed, completed on time, and installed as required."
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
