CBCA Denies the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on an Issue of Fact Regarding the Contractor’s Reservation of Rights via a Transmission Email
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.20.24
In Fortis Industries, Inc., CBCA 7967 (Sept. 18, 2024), the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) denied in part the government’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether the contractor released its claims by signing a modification terminating the contract for convenience. During contract performance, the General Services Administration (GSA) imposed monthly deductions to contract payments as a response to certain performance issues. GSA later proposed to terminate the contract for convenience and sent a contract modification stating that all obligations under the contract were concluded except payment for work performed in June 2022. The contractor signed the modification but stated in its transmittal email that it was owed payment for services in May 2022 as well.
When the GSA contracting officer later denied the contractor’s claim for recovery of the monthly deductions, the contractor appealed to the CBCA. On appeal, GSA sought summary judgment, citing the executed contract modification. The CBCA denied that motion as it pertained to payment for services provided in May and June 2022. The CBCA held that whether the contractor’s transmission email reserved its rights to payment for services provided in May 2022 was “a factual matter that need[ed] further development,” because the correspondence indicated that the parties may not have intended to release the May 2022 deduction claim.
This holding is consistent with a decision issued by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals’ (ASBCA), NMS Management, Inc., ASBCA No. 61519 (Apr. 11, 2019) which we reported on here. In that decision, the ASBCA also addressed a government motion for summary judgment based upon the contractor’s execution of a contract modification, holding that the plain meaning rule required consideration of not only the modification but also the contractor’s transmittal email, which had included a reservation of the contractor’s rights. This case is another reminder to contractors of the importance of carefully reviewing the terms of any release, and reserving rights in writing when appropriate.
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
