ASBCA’s FY 2024 Report – Examining the Numbers
Client Alert | 3 min read | 01.06.25
On October 31, 2024, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA or Board) published its FY 2024 Report of Transactions and Proceedings, which provides statistics regarding the “adjudication of appeals, petitions for contracting officer final decisions, applications for fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act, and other matters” of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Corps of Engineers, Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Contract Management Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.
The ASBCA disposed of 419 cases in FY 2024, an increase from 375 in FY 2023. The agencies with the most docketed cases were the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Navy, which were involved in 71 and 58 cases, respectively.
In a year that saw the ASBCA resolve 126 cases on the merits, the Board considered issues of claim accrual, improper terminations for default, Contracts Disputes Act (CDA) jurisdiction, and compensable delay, among others. Crowell stays up to date on cases being decided by the ASBCA, and reports of these cases can be found on our Government Contracts Group’s “Insights” page here. A few of the noteworthy cases include:
- In Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, ASBCA No. 62209 (Apr. 23, 2024), a C&M case, the Board issued a landmark decision awarding $131,888,860 in damages plus interest in connection with Lockheed Martin’s claim for cumulative disruptive impacts—highlighting the Board’s willingness to consider multiple forms of evidence to demonstrate the impacts of cumulative disruption. (Discussed here).
- In JE Dunn Construction Company, ASBCA No. 63183 (Dec. 13, 2023) and in ECC International Constructors, LLC, ASBCA Nos. 59586, 59643 (Jan. 2, 2024), the Board applied the Federal Circuit’s holding in ECC Int’l Constructors Inc. v. Army, that the sum-certain requirement is non-jurisdictional and subject to forfeiture or waiver. First, in JE Dunn, the Board found that the government forfeited its argument that JE Dunn did not satisfy the sum-certain requirement because it waited until after the hearing on the merits to raise the issue. (Discussed here). Second, in ECC International Constructors, the Board held, on remand, that the defense was waived after the government did not raise it for over six years after the appeal was filed. (Discussed here).
- Aviation Training Consulting, LLC, ASBCA No. 63634 (Jan. 11, 2024), clarified that the Board has CDA jurisdiction over properly asserted claims for relief pursuant to the authority of CARES Act. (Discussed here).
Furthermore, the Federal Circuit disposed of nine ASBCA decisions on appeal with seven affirmed, one affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part, and one dismissed.
The FY 2024 report also demonstrates that Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) remains a successful tool for resolving disputes at the ASBCA. The report indicates that the Board’s ADR program resolved 100% of cases in which the parties completed formal mediation sessions.
The full report can be found here.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
