CAS Price Adjustments Limited To "Affected" Contracts
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.16.10
In Donley v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (June 10, 2010) (litigated by Crowell & Moring), the Federal Circuit affirmed the ASBCA's decision that a CAS-covered contract that was completely repriced with full disclosure after a change in accounting was not "affected" by the change and was not subject to price adjustment to reflect the impact of the change -- an argument that could also preclude price adjustments on task orders that are negotiated without reliance on cost accounting information under CAS-covered IDIQ contracts. The Court rejected the Justice Department's arguments that the repriced contract was "affected" by the change either because it had been modified rather than completely terminated and re-awarded or because the PCO's agreement to a new price constituted an impermissible "waiver" of the ACO's exclusive right to determine the impact of an accounting change.
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.13.26
Supreme Court Confirms Contractual Loss of Bargain Without Repudiatory Breach
English law has long treated the choice between terminating for repudiatory breach and exercising a contractual termination right as consequential. Under the Financings[1] causation principle, a party exercising a contractual right for a non-repudiatory breach could recover losses accrued to the date of termination — but nothing more. Loss of bargain was out of reach unless the breach went to the root of the contract. A practical workaround, confirmed in Lombard,[2] was to designate the relevant obligation as a condition, elevating any breach to repudiatory status, but that device carries significant strategic risk if the termination is later found to have been wrongful.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 08.12.26
Developments in Canadian Investment Treaty Practice: New FIPA Between Canada and UAE in Force
Client Alert | 6 min read | 08.11.26
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.10.26
