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 | 6 min read | 11.19.25
The facts before the Third Circuit in the recently decided case of Patel v. United States illustrate how parties can put themselves in a bind if they make factual admissions when resolving a criminal case involving fraud on the government while not simultaneously resolving the government’s civil claims under the False Claims Act (FCA) for the same underlying conduct.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 11.18.25
DOJ Announces Major Enforcement Actions Targeting North Korean Remote IT Worker Schemes
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.18.25
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25
