Better to Ask Permission than Forgiveness: ASBCA Denies Subcontract Payments
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.18.19
On November 19, 2018, the ASBCA denied KBR’s claim for reimbursement of REA payments made to KBR’s subcontractor supplying trailers to the Army in Iraq. The cost-reimbursement task order permitted payment of “reasonable” allowable costs. KBR alleged that the government failed to perform the prime contract or, alternatively, was obligated to change the period of performance, and, thus, was responsible for the subcontractor’s delays and additional costs sought by the subcontractor’s REA and paid by KBR. The Board held that KBR was not entitled to reimbursement because the terms of the fixed-price subcontract did not obligate it to reimburse the additional costs, the decision to pay the subcontractor was a business decision KBR made, and the government did not object to any performance period extensions KBR granted to the subcontractor. The Board also found that the subcontractor’s REA costs were not substantiated, because they were not based on actual costs (although the subcontractor had this information), but on market estimates and delay models (which the Board found to be unreasonable). The Board rejected KBR’s argument that actual costs were not required because the subcontract was for commercial items, finding that the subcontract did not state it was for commercial items or contain commercial item clauses.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26



