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 | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....