ASBCA Rules that Navy’s Desires Are Not an Option
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.13.19
In Fluor Federal Solutions (Jan. 10, 2019), the ASBCA agreed with Fluor that the Navy erroneously modified the terms of a contract option and granted summary judgment to Fluor. The Navy argued that it had the right to make the modification, which reduced the amount it paid for services Fluor provided at four military bases for the option year. The Board concluded the modification could only be made with proper documentation of the rationale behind the change. As the Navy failed to provide such documentation, the Board held that the modification to exercise the option was “unenforceable” (as opposed to a “defective” option). The ASBCA awarded Fluor $14.8 million, the difference between Fluor’s estimate of its costs to perform the modification (plus reasonable profit) and the amount the Navy awarded for the contact option. Fluor’s estimate was based on its actual costs to perform the contract in the prior year.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 10.21.25
Pivot Point for 340B: HRSA Rebate Model Pilot Program Approaches Launch
The deadline for Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) to notify approved manufacturers of acceptance into the 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program has passed, and stakeholders across the healthcare industry should start planning for compliance and operational changes. The Model Pilot Program may also face legal challenges that could delay or disrupt implementation.
Client Alert | 5 min read | 10.20.25
What’s new for Belgian Construction Contracts under the New Book 7 of the Civil Code
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.17.25
California Enacts New Requirements and Restrictions for Health Care Transactions
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.15.25
