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 | 2 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.
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.29.25
Gender-Affirming Care Targeted for Potential False Claims Act Enforcement
On August 19, 2025, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) informed insurers participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefits or Postal Service Health Benefits programs that gender-affirming care would no longer be covered for federal workers starting in 2026. This coverage decision is the Trump Administration’s latest action stemming from Executive Order 14187 which aims to prevent certain treatments, such as gender-affirming hormone therapy, surgeries, and puberty blockers for those under the age of 19. As previously discussed, the Administration has also signaled its intent to use various law enforcement tools against gender-affirming care, including Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to police false or unsupported claims by medical professionals about gender-affirming treatments.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.28.25
9th Circuit Marches Forward to the Future Finding Digital Assets Are Protected Under Trademark Law
Client Alert | 2 min read | 08.27.25
CPSC Maintains Momentum on eFiling Requirements for Consumer Products
Client Alert | 10 min read | 08.27.25
The New EU “Pharma Package”: Advertising – A Comparison of Commission/Parliament/Council Positions