Attorney Fees for Claim Preparation Are Recoverable, Despite Contingency Arrangement
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.19.12
In SUFI Network Servs., Inc. v. U.S. (June 18, 2012), the Court of Federal Claims granted SUFI, represented by C&M, summary judgment, holding that SUFI is entitled to attorneys' fees as an equitable adjustment pursuant to the common-law test of foreseeability applicable to NAFI contractors when FAR regulations do not apply. The CFC analyzed SUFI's claim under the Federal Circuit's seminal Bill Strong decision, finding that, even under a FAR analysis, SUFI's claimed legal fees (calculated on an "hours times rate," or lodestar, basis) were not precluded by the existence of a contingency agreement and were recoverable because they were for contract administration, as opposed to claim prosecution.
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.20.25
FAR Council Issues Rewrites to FAR Parts 8 and 12
On August 14, 2025, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) and the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) issued draft revisions to FAR Part 8 and FAR Part 12 (as well as to FAR Parts 4 and 40). These are the latest rewrites under the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) initiative pursuant to Executive Order 14275, “Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement,” which we previously reported on here.
Client Alert | 15 min read | 08.20.25
Client Alert | 2 min read | 08.19.25
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.19.25
Forged Faces, Real Liability: Deepfake Laws Take Effect in Washington State and Pennsylvania