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 | 5 min read | 06.01.26
California Court Upholds Insurer’s Duty to Defend After Covered Claim Is Dismissed
On April 30, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a significant ruling in an insurance coverage dispute between a commercial general liability insurer and its policyholder. The decision addresses several critical issues in insurance law, including the scope and continuity of the duty to defend and the standard for insurer reimbursement of defense costs in mixed-claim actions. The court ruled largely in favor of the insured, SVO Building One, LLC ("SVO"), and the matter now heads toward settlement or trial on SVO's remaining counterclaims.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.29.26
California Assembly Passes AB 1776, Sending Major Antitrust Bill to the Senate
Client Alert | 5 min read | 05.29.26
Clover Insurance v. HHS: S.D. of Georgia Holds 20 Star Ratings Measures Unlawful
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.29.26
