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 | 3 min read | 07.23.26
It is well established that “[c]ompetitive prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest.” Yet, for decades, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has tempered this requirement with two critical corollaries: protesters need only demonstrate a “reasonable possibility” that they were prejudiced by an agency’s actions, and GAO “will resolve doubts regarding prejudice in favor of the protester.” These principles have been consistent features of GAO’s bid protest jurisprudence for more than 30 years. See, e.g., United Int’l Eng'g, Inc., B-245448, Jan. 29, 1992, 71 CPD ¶ 177.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26
Second Circuit Affirms Preliminary Injunction Against Nielsen in Constructive Tying Case
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Ghost Advertising: Compliance Takeaways From the Gymshark Influencer Class Action
