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 | 4 min read | 09.15.26
GAO Indicates Reasonable Conflict of Interest Investigation Must Include Inquiry of Involved Firm
The U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) recent decision in Viderity Inc.—Costs, B-424422.5, Sept. 1, 2026, offers useful insight into what constitutes a legally sufficient conflict of interest investigation. The decision arose in an unusual procedural posture: Viderity initially protested, alleging that an agency evaluator had a personal conflict of interest. After the agency took corrective action, Viderity filed a cost entitlement claim requesting that GAO direct the agency to reimburse Viderity’s protest costs. In evaluating that claim, GAO assessed whether Viderity’s underlying protest ground was “clearly meritorious.”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.15.26
Client Alert | 7 min read | 09.14.26
AI in Life Sciences: Ten Legal Considerations and Risks of AI Use in Drug Discovery and Development
Client Alert | 6 min read | 09.14.26
Mental Health Parity Bulletin Restates Best Practices for Evaluating Compliance
