1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Silence = Acquiescence: Government Stuck with Contractor’s Interpretation that was Provided with its Proposal

Silence = Acquiescence: Government Stuck with Contractor’s Interpretation that was Provided with its Proposal

Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.18.20

On February 7, 2020, the ASBCA sustained the appeal of Command Languages, Inc. d/b/a CLI Solutions (CLI) against the Army over increased costs to translate technical manuals. CLI contracted with the Army to translate advanced level armored vehicle maintenance manuals for use by the Afghanistan Army. The advanced level manuals included tasks from basic level manuals, but CLI only incorporated these tasks by reference – the tasks themselves were not translated. CLI and the Army disagreed over whether contract language stating that the basic manuals were provided to the contractor as government furnished information (GFI) “for reference” permitted CLI to incorporate information from them by reference. The Board found that CLI’s contract interpretation was reasonable, given that CLI notified the Army of its intent to use this reference-only approach and provided sample manuals, and the Army had no objections to this approach prior to performance. The Board pointed out that the contract gave CLI the option to utilize GFI in the “most effective” manner of its choosing when creating the advanced manuals, and there was no contract language prohibiting CLI’s method. The Board also found that the Army did not challenge CLI’s approach until after performance started. 

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25

District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products

On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market....