No Recovery Under EAJA for Employee’s Costs Working on an Appeal
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 02.28.20
In GSI & Whitesell-Green JV (Jan. 30, 2020), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals denied a contractor’s request for Equal Access to Justice Act fees that reflected its employees’ costs of supporting the entitlement appeal. The Board rejected the contractor’s argument that its employees’ costs were similar to attorney’s fees finding support in Fanning Phillips, Molnar v. West, 160 F.3d 717 (Fed. Cir. 1998), which held that EAJA did not cover costs related to a contractor employees’ “personal absence from a business” or “other expenses” or “time spent [as] an ‘expert witness.’”
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
