Board Rejects Claim Based on Certain Fiscal Law Violations
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.12.17
In Parsons Government Services, Inc. (ASBCA No. 60663, May 3, 2017), the Board dismissed Parsons’ $21 million claim because both contractual allegations turned on fiscal law provisions that did not entitle Parsons to relief. First, Parsons argued that the contract was void ab initio, entitling Parsons to quantum meruit, because “the government should have awarded the contract as a construction contract appropriating MILCON funds [pursuant to 10 U.S.C. §§ 2801 et seq.] instead of a supply and services contract using O&M funds.” Second, Parsons argued that the government “violated the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by depriving Parsons of its reasonable expectations” of the necessary Congressional oversight and more stringent terms consistent with a MILCON-funded contract….” The Board rejected both arguments under Federal Circuit precedent, finding that the statutory MILCON provision underlying Parsons’ claim did not provide a private right of action for contractors to sue because the primary intended beneficiary of the statute was the government.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 08.21.26
FTC Proposes Enforcement Policy Statement on Personalized Pricing: What Businesses Need to Know
On August 19, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a proposed Enforcement Policy Statement on personalized pricing — the practice of companies using consumers’ personal data to set individualized prices, discounts, coupons, or other incentives. The proposed statement, which is open for public comment for 30 days following publication in the Federal Register, marks a major step up in the FTC’s focus on data-driven pricing strategies and puts businesses across industries on notice that undisclosed or inadequately disclosed personalized pricing will not be tolerated. Importantly, while the proposed statement is not a binding legal requirement and does not create new legal obligations, it serves as an enforcement warning that the FTC is prepared to use its existing enforcement authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act (Section 5) and is also a potential harbinger of rulemaking. Businesses that engage in — or are considering — personalized pricing should carefully assess their disclosure practices and data collection procedures against the standards articulated in this statement.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 08.19.26
CMS’s Final Rule Bans Federal Medicaid Funding for Youth Gender-Affirming Care
Client Alert | 2 min read | 08.19.26
