No Prime Liability = No Pass-Through
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 05.06.08
The Court of Federal Claims in Harper/Nielsen Dillingham, Builders v. U.S. (Apr. 29, 2008) denied a contractor's suit against the government in which it sought to pass through subcontractor claims for cost increases caused by government delays. The court acknowledged that the "Severin doctrine" allows such pass-through claims when the prime contractor is potentially liable to its subcontractor for the damages, but here found the prime could not be liable because the subcontract included an "iron-bound bar" against such liability due to a "no damage for delay" clause.
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
