Board Upholds Measured-Mile Methodology to Calculate Disruption
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.24.22
In Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, ASBCA No. 62209 (a C&M case), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“Board”) denied the Air Force’s motion for summary judgment, which had argued that the “measured mile” approach to calculating disruption was legally untenable. In its decision, the Board noted that it has “accepted the measured mile approach as an appropriate method of determining impact to productivity” referencing extended discussion in King Aerospace, Inc., ASBCA No. 60933, 19- 1 BCA ¶ 37,316. The Board also granted Lockheed Martin’s cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of release, holding that the express language of modifications signed by the parties indicated that Lockheed Martin did not release any portion of its claim. The recent decisions follow on the heels of two other Board decisions. In April 2022, the Board granted Lockheed Martin’s cross-motion for summary judgment on the Air Force’s statute of limitations defense because Lockheed Martin’s claim did not accrue before the events that fixed the government’s liability occurred (discussed here). In June 2021, in a case of first impression, the Board granted Lockheed Martin’s motion for summary judgment on the Air Force’s affirmative defense of laches, holding that laches is no longer applicable in CDA cases at the Board (discussed here).
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.30.25
The New EU “Pharma Package”: Preparing for the Trilogues
On June 4, 2025, after nearly two years of intense debate and negotiation between the 27 EU Member States, the Council of the European Union adopted its position on the proposed overhaul of the EU general pharmaceutical legislative framework known as the new Pharma Package.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.26.25
FDA Targets Gene Editing Clinical Trials in China and other “Hostile Countries”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.26.25
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.26.25
Ninth Circuit Affirms that CIPA Only Applies to Third-Party Eavesdropping