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 | 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
