1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |CBCA Holds that Contractor is Out on a Limb Seeking Claim Preparation Costs, but Grants T4C Partial Victory

CBCA Holds that Contractor is Out on a Limb Seeking Claim Preparation Costs, but Grants T4C Partial Victory

Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.11.19

In Woolery Timber Management, Inc. v. Department of Agriculture (CBCA No. 6031), the contractor sought damages for the alleged partial termination of its contract and various other costs, including consulting fees related to the contractor’s preparation of its certified claim and extra time expended as a result of blocked access to a road. With respect to the alleged partial termination, the Board found that it was not, in fact, a termination at all because the parties failed to execute a draft bilateral modification that would have eliminated some work scope, and the contracting officer never unilaterally issued the modification. However, the Board noted that, earlier, the CO had partially terminated for convenience, but that the contractor failed to submit a termination settlement proposal within one year of that earlier termination. That failure was not fatal. The Board explained that because the earlier termination occurred under the commercial items termination for convenience clause (FAR 52.212-4), and not the FAR’s standard termination for convenience clause, there was no one-year time limit and, thus, Woolery still could “pursue a remedy for any increased costs resulting from the…convenience termination.” Regarding Woolery’s cost claims, the Board reiterated that, consistent with Bill Strong, Woolery could not recover its claim preparation costs. Lastly, the Board awarded Woolery half of its idle equipment damages resulting from a service road that was accidentally blocked — despite the fact that the solicitation did not warrant that Woolery could use the road (generally, this language is required to make an excusable delay compensable).

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25

A Sign of What’s to Come? Court Dismisses FCA Retaliation Complaint Based on Alleged Discriminatory Use of Federal Funding

On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future....